A Brief Introduction to

Ḥanafī Uṣūl al-Fiqh

Lesson 1
Itqan Institute
‘Authority of the Sunnah & Ḥanafī Principles of Ḥadīth’

© Copyright Itqan Institute

Books used to look at the history of Uṣūl al-Fiqh & Ḥanafī Uṣūl al-Fiqh in particular

‫ﶈﺎت ﻣﻦ اﻟﱰﺑﻴﺔ اﻟﻔﻘﻬﻴﺔ‬ ‫اﻟﻘﻄﻌﻲ واﻟﻈﲏ ﺑﲔ أﻫﻞ‬ ‫ﺗﻄﻮر اﻟﻔﻜﺮ اﻷﺻﻮﱄ‬ ‫ﺗﻄﻮر اﻟﻔﻜﺮ اﻷﺻﻮﱄ ﻋﻨﺪ‬ The Early Development The Economy of A History of Islamic
of Ḥanafī Uṣūl al-Fiqh Certainty Legal Theories
‫ﰲ ﺧﲑ اﻟﻘﺮون زﻣﻦ‬ ‫اﻟﺮأي وأﻫﻞ اﻟﺮأي‬ ‫اﳊﻨﻔﻲ‬ ‫اﳌﺘﻜﻠﻤﲔ‬ by Murtaḍā Bedīr by Wael Ḥallaq
By Aaron Zysow
‫اﻟﺮﺳﺎﻟﺔ وﻋﺼﺮ اﻟﺼﺤﺎﺑﺔ‬ By Dr. Anas Sarmīnī By Dr. Haytham By Dr. Aḥmad Ḥasanāt The book follows the It is like the work of Quite detailed and
‫واﻟﺘﺎﺑﻌﲔ‬ A fantastic book Khaznah He traces the development journey in Uṣūl of four Bedir but not philosophical. It
published only He details the of the Ṭarīqah al- books; Al-Fuṣūl by Jasṣāṣ restricted to the can be a
By Sh. ʿAbd al-Ḥalīm recently by Markaz development of the Mutakallimīn. He attributes
al-Noʿmānī (d.370 AH), Uṣūl al- Ḥanafī Madhhab. He challenging read.
Namā’. The author is Ṭarīqah al-Fuqahā. The the founder of this school to Sarakhsī by Al-Sarakhsī begins by covering He disagrees with
He traces how the from Istanbul and first half discusses the be Imām al-Shāfiʿī. Thus,
Prophet inspired and (d.483 AH), Kanz al- prophetic reports, the concept of Al-
claim Istiqrā in the progression of this contradicting Ḥallāq and Wuṣūl by Al-Bazdawī then interpretation, Shāfiʿī being the
taught the Ṣaḥābah
results that he approach through the Makdisī who argue that Al- (d.482 AH) and Uṣūl al- then consensus, founder of Uṣūl al-
the methodology to
presents in the book. Madrasah al-ʿIrāq and Shāfiʿī disliked Kalām. He Shāshī. He details the then analogy and Fiqh. The rest of
engage in Fiqh. This
is quite unique. He He states that the Madrasah Samarqand. does not criticise the methodology of each finally Ijtihād. A the book focuses a
then speaks about Ahl al-Ra’y He begins by Ṭarīqah al-Mutakallimīn at book first. After this, he unique feature is lot on Al-
how the Ṣaḥābah did considered three introducing the all. He identifies ʿAbd al- goes chapter by chapter that he references Muwafaqāt of Al-
the same. He speaks concepts to be various Uṣūl books. Jabbār al-Muʿtazilī and Qāḍī into every topic in these traditionalist books, Shāṭibī. Much like
about the value of epistemologically The second half looks Abū Bakar al-Bāqillānī as Ḥanafī Uṣūl books and he usually does not Zysow, he pays
Fiqh and Ijtihād. He the strongest form at the Masā’il the first genuine scholars of compares each of them. use secondary little attention to
pays special focus to of evidence for an themselves, detailing Uṣūl engaged in Kalām from The presentation in sources. Quoted by the idea of the two
Kūfah in this regard. acceptable tradition. the view of each the Muʿtazilah and each topic is very clear. many scholars. approaches in Uṣūl.
Madrasah. Ashāʿirah
Books used to look at the history of Uṣūl al-Fiqh & Ḥanafī Uṣūl al-Fiqh in particular

A Theory of Early How Subjectivity The Canonization of The History of an ‫اﳌﺪﺧﻞ اﳌﻔﺼﻞ إﱃ اﻟﻔﻘﻪ اﳊﻨﻔﻲ‬ ‫ﺣﺴﻦ اﻟﺘﻘﺎﺿﻲ وﺑﻠﻮغ اﻷﻣﺎﱐ‬ ‫درﺳﺎت ﰲ أﺻﻮل اﳊﺪﻳﺚ‬
Classical Ḥanafism by Became Wrong: Early Islamic Law by Ahmed Islāmic School of Law: by Dr. Ṣalāḥ Abu’l Ḥāj by Sh. Al-Kawtharī ‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﻨﻬﺞ اﳊﻨﻔﻴﺔ‬
Sohail Hanif Ḥanafism and the El Shamsy The Early Spread of The book is an Al-Kawtharī has been by ʿAbd al-Majīd al-
A revolutionary book Scandal of Istiḥsān in It follows the journey Ḥanafism by Nurit introduction to the described by Sh.
Turkumānī
in my opinion that the Formative Period of Imām al-Shāfiʿī and Tsafrir Ḥanafī Madhhab but is ʿAwwāmah as someone
This book will be a key
the Ḥanafīs had three of Islāmic Law by how he transformed an She follows the spread filled with details who understood:
book that we will
pillars upon which Hassaan Shahawy oral normative of early Ḥanafism, ‫ﻏﻮاﺋﻞ اﳉﺮح واﻟﺘﻌﺪﻳﻞ‬
regarding the consult throughout
The number of sources
they based their legal He follows the tradition embedded in essentially up until 300 development of Fiqh. the course. The author
Al-Kawtharī had is
theory; language, development of the communal practice to a AH, mainly by looking He uses diagrams to incredible. In these
gives a summary of all
community and the idea of Istiḥsān. He systematic legal at biographical help explain issues and the Ḥanafī positions
books, he covers the
habit of the law. The argues that it was science defined by dictionaries. However, the book is filled with and ideas on each
lives of the A’immah of
author then goes on embraced by early interpreting the there are flaws in the chapter of Muṣṭalaḥ
quotes. Heavily the Madhhab using lots
al-Ḥadīth. The depths
to show how Ṣāḥib Ḥanafīs and was scripture itself. He book. She bizarrely inspired by Al- of rare sources that only
of his quotations are
al-Hidāyah wrote his understood to be any shows how Al-Shāfiʿī’s accuses Imām Kawtharī.He attributes later came into print.
incredible, finding
book so that one can departure from theory of revelation Muḥammad of having the idea of there being Most who came after
rare gems. He has
understand the habit Qiyās, then it was formed the basis of the said that the Qur’ān is Ahl al-Ra’y and Ahl al- him to write on the
written a summary
of the law and peak contested (9th CE) emergence of Uṣūl al- created, and certain A’immah relied upon
Ḥadīth as coming from which Shaykh
at Ḥanafī theory. The and then denounced Fiqh. Pg.168 has a parts clearly show the him. Sh. Ḥamzah Bakrī’s
Rashīd Riḍā, he denies footnotes are also
ʿAwwāmah
book also speaks (10th-11th CE) and summary of the author lacks knowledge the existence of such recommends. The
incredibly detailed and
about the approaches later traditionalized. theories of Islāmic law. of the tradition. terms. intro is also very
well-referenced.
in Ḥanafī Uṣūl. beneficial.
Uṣūl al-Fiqh during the time of the Ṣaḥābah & Tābiʿūn
• Uṣūl al-Fiqh linguistically means ‘roots of Fiqh’
• In terminology, it can be defined as the methods and principles through which the Fiqh has been derived
• The definition Dr. Ṣalāḥ Abu’l Ḥāj prefers is [Masār al-Wuṣūl pg.18]:
‫ﺳﺘﺨﺮاج اﻟﻌﻠﻞ اﻟﱵ ﺗﺒﲏ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ اﻷﺣﻜﺎم‬Q ‫ﻫﻮ اﻟﻌﻠﻢ اﻟﺬي ﻳﺒّﲔ اﳌﻨﺎﻫﺞ اﻟﱵ اﻧﺘﻬﺠﻬﺎ اﻷﺋﻤﺔ ا<ﺘﻬﺪون ﰲ اﺳﺘﻨﺒﺎﻃﻬﻢ وﺗﻌﺮﻓﻬﻢ ﻟﻸﺣﻜﺎم ﻣﻦ اﻟﻨﺼﻮص واﻟﺒﻨﺎء ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ‬
• Some differences between Fiqh and Uṣūl al-Fiqh [Masār al-Wuṣūl pg.20]:

• We can say then that in terms of application, Uṣūl al-Fiqh precedes Fiqh as it is the process required through which Fiqh is
acquired – though it is codified and written upon a lot later. Dr. Aḥmad Ḥasanāt [pg.25] writes:
‫إن اﻟﱰﺗﻴﺐ اﳌﻨﻄﻘﻲ ﻟﻸﻣﻮر ﻳﻘﻀﻲ ^ن ﻋﻠﻢ اﻷﺻﻮل ﺳﺎﺑﻖ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻋﻠﻢ اﻟﻔﻘﻪ وﺿﻌﺎ وذﻫﻨﺎ وإن ﻛﺎن ﻣﺘﺄﺧﺮا ﻋﻨﻪ ﺧﺎرﺟﺎ‬
• Accordingly, we may say that it was the Prophet ṣallallāhu ʿalayhi wasallam who first taught Uṣūl al-Fiqh through the
methodology in which he taught the Ṣaḥābah the concept of Fiqh
How the Prophet ṣallallāhu ʿalayhi wasallam taught Uṣūl al-Fiqh
Ml ʿAbd al-Ḥalīm al-Noʿmānī categorises [pg.15-28] the Prophet’s methodology into four stages:
1) The stage of encouragement (‫)ﻣﺮﺣﻠﺔ اﻟﱰﻏﻴﺐ‬
2) The stage of teaching and explaining (‫)ﻣﺮﺣﻠﺔ اﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻢ واﻟﺘﻔﻘﻴﻪ‬
3) The stage of exercise and practice (‫)ﻣﺮﺣﻠﺔ اﻟﺘﻤﺮﻳﻦ واﻟﺘﺤﻘﻴﻖ‬
4) The stage of practical demonstration (‫)ﻣﺮﺣﻠﺔ اﻟﺘﻄﺒﻴﻖ اﻟﻌﻤﻠﻲ‬
The stage of encouragement (‫)ﻣﺮﺣﻠﺔ اﻟﱰﻏﻴﺐ‬
The Prophet ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam would encourage the ṣaḥābah in developing jurisprudential abilities (tafaqquh) and attempting to
understanding how the rulings of Sharῑ‘ah may be derived.
Examples:
• Imām al-Bukhārī (d.256 AH) narrates that the Prophet ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam once said to the ṣaḥābah [1:25 Dār al-Minhāj]:
‫ﻣﻦ ﻳﺮد ﷲ ﺑﻪ ﺧﲑا ﻳﻔﻘﻬﻪ ﰲ اﻟﺪﻳﻦ‬
“That individual for whom Allah intends good, He grants him the understanding of the religion”
• Imām al-Bukhārī (d.256 AH) narrates that the Prophet ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam once said to the ṣaḥābah [9:108 Dār al-Minhāj]:
‫إذا ﺣﻜﻢ اﳊﺎﻛﻢ ﻓﺎﺟﺘﻬﺪ ﻓﺄﺻﺎب ﻓﻠﻪ أﺟﺮان وإذا ﺣﻜﻢ ﻓﺎﺟﺘﻬﺪ ﰒ أﺧﻄﺄ ﻓﻠﻪ أﺟﺮ‬
“When a judge rules and exerts [his mind], and he gets it (the ruling) correct, then for him is two rewards, and if he rules and exerts [his mind] and
then errs, then for him is one reward ”
• Imām Abū Dāwūd (d.275 AH) narrates that the Prophet ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam said [4:244 Al-Rayyān]:
‫ب ُﻣﺒَـﻠﱠٍﻎ أَْوَﻋﻰ ِﻣْﻦ َﺳﺎِﻣٍﻊ‬
‫ﻀَﺮ ﷲُ اْﻣَﺮأً َِﲰَﻊ ِﻣﻨﱠﺎ َﺣِﺪﻳْـﺜًﺎ ﻓََﺤِﻔﻈَﻪُ َﺣﱠﱴ ﻳَـ ْﺒـﻠُﻐَﻪُ ﻓَـُﺮ ﱠ‬
‫ﻧَ ﱠ‬
“May Allah keep fresh the person who hears a ḥadῑth and then informs it to others, for at times, the person to whom it is conveyed has more
understanding [of it] than the one who heard it”
The stage of teaching and explaining (‫)ﻣﺮﺣﻠﺔ اﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻢ واﻟﺘﻔﻘﻴﻪ‬
Along with this encouragement to engage with understanding Fiqhῑ rulings, the Prophet ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam would actively
teach the ṣaḥābah the rulings of Fiqh, to the early converts in Dār al-Arqam (‫ )دار اﻷرﻗﻢ‬in Makah and then to the Aṣḥāb al-Ṣuffah
(‫( )أﺻﺤﺎب اﻟﺼﻔﺔ‬the first ever Islāmic ‘institute’) in Madῑnah.
Examples:
• It is mentioned in the story of ‘Umar RA’s acceptance of Islām that his sister said to him:
‫إﻧﻚ رﺟﺲ وإﻧﻪ ﻻ ﳝﺴﻪ إﻻ اﳌﻄﻬﺮون ﻓﻘﻢ ﻓﺎﻏﺘﺴﻞ أو ﺗﻮﺿﺄ‬
“Indeed, you are filfthy, none can touch it except those who are clean. So, stand up and perform ablution or ghusl”
It is clear that she had learnt this ruling from the Prophet ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam.
• Anas ibn Mālik RA states [Ḥilyah al-Awliyā, 2:342]:
‫أﻗﺒﻞ أﺑﻮ ﻃﻠﺤﺔ ﻳﻮﻣﺎ ﻓﺈذا اﻟﻨﱯ ﺻﻠﻰ ﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ وﺳﻠّﻢ ﻗﺎﺋﻢ ﻳﻘﺮئ أﺻﺤﺎب اﻟﺼﻔﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺑﻄﻨﻪ ﻓﺼﻴﻞ ﻣﻦ ﺣﺠﺮ ﻳﻘﻴﻢ ﺑﻪ ﺻﻠﺒﻪ ﻣﻦ اﳉﻮع وﻛﺎن ﺷﻐﻠﻬﻢ ﺗﻔّﻬﻢ اﻟﻜﺘﺎب وﺗﻌﻠّﻤﻪ‬
“Abū Ṭalḥah once came and the Prophet ṣallallāhu ʿalayhi wasallam was standing, teaching the Aṣḥāb al-Ṣuffah, upon his stomach
was a piece of stone that would keep his back straight due to hunger, their engrossment was learning the Qur’ān and teaching it”
• One of the students amongst the Aṣḥāb al-Ṣuffah, ʿAbdullah ibn Masʿūd RA states [Siyar, 1:490]:
‫ت ﻣﻦ اﻟﻘﺮآن ﱂ ﻧﺘﻌﻠّﻢ ﻣﻦ اﻟﻌﺸﺮ اﻟﱵ ﻧﺰﻟﺖ ﺑﻌﺪﻫﺎ ﺣﱴ ﻧﻌﻠﻢ ﻣﺎ ﻓﻴﻪ‬h‫ﻛﻨّﺎ إذا ﺗﻌﻠّﻤﻨﺎ ﻣﻦ اﻟﻨﱯ ﺻﻠﻰ ﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ وﺳﻠّﻢ ﻋﺸﺮ آ‬
“When we would learn ten verses from the Prophet ṣallallāhu ʿalayhi wasallam, we would not learn the next ten until we had learn
what [rulings] were in them (these ten)”
• An aspect Shāh Waliullah discusses is that the Prophet ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam when asked about more intricate matters would
refer the questioner to the general principles on that matter without delving into the intricacies on the matter. Hence, he would
guide the questioner to the general principles and leave it upto the questioner to decide the ruling. Shāh Waliullah writes [ʿIqd al-
Jīd, pg.176]:
‫وﻫﺬا ﻛﻠﻪ ﻟﺘﻔﻮﻳﻀﻪ ﻣﺜﻞ ذﻟﻚ إﱃ آراﺋﻬﻢ وﻫﻜﺬا أﻛﺜﺮ ﻓﺘﺎواﻩ ﺻﻠﻰ ﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ وآﻟﻪ وﺳﻠﻢ‬...‫وأرﺷﺪﻫﻢ إﱃ رد اﳉﺰﺋﻴﺎت ﳓﻮ اﻟﻜﻠﻴﺎت‬
The stage of exercise and practice (‫)ﻣﺮﺣﻠﺔ اﻟﺘﻤﺮﻳﻦ واﻟﺘﺤﻘﻴﻖ‬
Along with having encouraged the ṣaḥābah to engage in understanding Fiqhῑ ruling and teaching them these rulings, the Prophet ṣallallāhu
‘alayhi wasallam would teach the ṣaḥābah how to extract new rulings for Masā’il that had not yet occurred using analogical deduction,
extracting the ruling for one Mas’alah by comparing it with another Mas’alah.
Examples:
• Imām al-Bukhāri (d.256 AH) has narrated from ʿAbdullah ibn ʿAbbās RA that he said [8:142 Dār al-Minhāj]:
‫ﺎ ﻣﺎﺗﺖ ﻓﻘﺎل اﻟﻨﱯ ﺻﻠﻰ ﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ وﺳﻠﻢ "ﻟﻮ ﻛﺎن ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ دﻳﻦ أﻛﻨﺖ ﻗﺎﺿﻴﻪ؟" ﻗﺎل "ﻧﻌﻢ" ﻗﺎل "ﻓﺎﻗﺾ ﷲ ﻓﻬﻮ‬t‫•أﻧﻪ أﺗﻰ رﺟﻞ إﱃ اﻟﻨﱯ ﺻﻠﻰ ﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ وﺳﻠﻢ ﻓﻘﺎل ﻟﻪ إن أﺧﱵ ﻧﺬرت أن ﲢﺞ وإ‬
"‫ﻟﻘﻀﺎء‬Q ‫أﺣﻖ‬
“That a man once came to the Prophet ṣallallāhu ʿalayhi wasallam, and he said, ‘Indeed my sister took a vow of performing Ḥajj and she
has passed away,’ the Prophet ṣallallāhu ʿalayhi wasallam responded, ‘If she had a debt upon her wouldn’t you pay it off?’ The man said,
‘Yes,’ so he replied, ‘Thus, fulfil [the debt of] Allah for the debt of Allah is more worthy of being paid off”
• Imām Abū Dāwūd (d.275 AH) has narrated from ‘Umar RA that he said [2:158-160 Al-Rayyān]:
"!‫ﻫﺸﺸﺖ وﻗﺒﻠﺖ وأ| ﺻﺎﺋﻢ ﻓﻘﻠﺖ "} رﺳﻮل ﷲ! ﻓﻌﻠﺖ اﻟﻴﻮم أﻣﺮا ﻓﻈﻴﻌﺎ ﻗﺒﻠﺖ وأ| ﺻﺎﺋﻢ" ﻗﺎل "أرأﻳﺖ ﻟﻮ ﻣﻀﻤﻀﺖ ﻣﻦ اﳌﺎء وأﻧﺖ ﺻﺎﺋﻢ؟‬
“I became excited, and I kissed my wife whilst I was fasting, so I said, “Oh prophet of Allah! I have done today a hideous act, I kissed my
wife whilst fasting,” so he said, “Do you not see, if you were to gargle with water while you were fasting?
• Imām Aḥmad (d.241 AH) has narrated from Abū Dhar RA that the Prophet ṣallallāhu ʿalayhi wasallam said [35:434 Al-Risālah]:
‫"وﻣﺒﺎﺿﻌﺘﻚ أﻫﻠﻚ ﺻﺪﻗﺔ" ﻗﻠﻨﺎ } رﺳﻮل ﷲ أﻳﻘﻀﻲ اﻟﺮﺟﻞ ﺷﻬﻮﺗﻪ وﺗﻜﻮن ﻟﻪ ﺻﺪﻗﺔ؟ ﻗﺎل "ﻧﻌﻢ أرأﻳﺖ ﻟﻮ ﺟﻌﻞ ﺗﻠﻚ اﻟﺸﻬﻮة ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﺣﺮم ﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ أﱂ ﻳﻜﻦ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ وزر؟" ﻗﻠﻨﺎ "ﺑﻠﻰ" ﻗﺎل "ﻓﺈﻧﻪ إذا‬
"‫ﺟﻌﻠﻬﺎ ﻓﻴﻤﺎ أﺣﻞ ﷲ ﻋﺰ وﺟﻞ ﻓﻬﻲ ﺻﺪﻗﺔ‬
“‘The relations with your wife is charity,’ we said, ‘Oh Prophet of Allah does a man fulfil his desire and it is a charity for him?’ He replied,
‘Yes, do you see that if he placed that desire in that which Allah has prohibited upon him, would there not be punishment upon him?’ We
replied, ‘Of course.’ He reponded, ‘For indeed, when he places it in that which Allah, the Exalted the High then it is a charity’”
• Imām al-Bukhārī (d.256 AH) has narrated from Abū Hurayrah RA []:
‫أن رﺟﻼ ﻣﻦ ﻓﺰارة ﺟﺎء إﱃ رﺳﻮل ﷲ ﺻﻠﻰ ﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ وﺳﻠﻢ ﻓﻘﺎل إن اﻣﺮأﰐ وﻟﺪت ﻏﻼﻣﺎ أﺳﻮد‬
The stage of practical demonstration (‫)ﻣﺮﺣﻠﺔ اﻟﺘﻄﺒﻴﻖ اﻟﻌﻤﻠﻲ‬
After having encouraged them to engage in understanding in Fiqhῑ rulings by mentioning its various virtues, teaching them the rulings of Fiqh at Dār al-Arqam,
giving them an explanation of how to understand a Fiqhῑ ruling, at times, the Prophet Ṣallallāhu ‘Alayhi Wasallam would ask some of the other Ṣaḥābah to issue
a Fatwā or judicial decree (‫ )اﻟﻘﻀﺎء‬in order to test their abilities of deducing the rulings of Sharῑ’ah.
• Imām al-Ḥākim Raḥimahullah (d.405 AH) has narrated from Sayyidunā ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Amr RA that he said [1:159 Al-Ta’ṣīl]:
َ ‫ﻚ َﻋْﺸُﺮ أُُﺟْﻮٍر َوإِن اْﺟﺘَـَﻬْﺪ‬ ِ ‫ رﺳﻮَل‬i ‫ﺿﺮ‬ ِ َ ْ‫ﻀﻲ ﺑـ ْﻴـﻨَـُﻬﻤﺎ وأَﻧ‬
ِ ِ ْ‫ﺻﻠﱠﻰ ﷲُ َﻋﻠَْﻴِﻪ َوَﺳﻠﱠَﻢ ﻓَـَﻘﺎَل ﻟَِﻌْﻤٍﺮو "اﻗ‬
‫ﻚ أَْﺟٌﺮ‬ َ ْ‫ت ﻓَﺄَْﺧﻄَﺄ‬
َ َ‫ت ﻓَـﻠ‬ َ َ‫ﺖ ﻓَـﻠ‬ َ َ‫ﻚ إِْن أ‬
َ ‫ﺻْﺒ‬ َ ‫ﷲ؟! ﻗَﺎَل ﻧَـَﻌْﻢ َﻋﻠَﻰ أَﻧﱠ‬ ْ ُ َ َ ٌ ‫ﺖ َﺣﺎ‬ َ َ َ ْ ْ‫ﺾ ﺑَـ ْﻴـﻨَـُﻬَﻤﺎ" ﻓَـَﻘﺎَل أَﻗ‬ َ ‫ﱯ‬ ِ َ َ‫ﲔ اْﺧﺘ‬
ِّ ِ‫ﺼَﻤﺎ إَﱃ اﻟﻨﱠ‬
ِ ْ َ‫أَﱠن َرُﺟﻠ‬
“That two men brought their dispute to the Prophet Sallallāhu ‘Alayhi Wasallam, so he said to Amr, ‘Issue a decree between these two.’ ‘Amr exclaimed, ‘I should
give a ruling between them whilst you are present oh Prophet of Allah?!’ The Prophet Sallallāhu ‘Alayhi Wasallam replied, ‘Yes, if you [perform Al-Ijtihād
(‫ )اﻹﺟﺘﻬﺎد‬and deduce a ruling and you] are correct, then you will receive ten rewards, and if you perform Al-Ijtihād (‫ )اﻹﺟﺘﻬﺎد‬and deduce a ruling that is incorrect,
then you will receive one reward”
• Imām Aḥmad Raḥimahullah (d.241 AH) has narrated from Sayyidunā Ma‛qil al-Muzanῑ RA that he said [33:420 Al-Risālah]:
ِ ‫ رﺳﻮَل‬i ‫ﻀﻲ‬
ِ ‫ﷲ! ﻗَﺎَل ﷲ ﻣﻊ اﻟَْﻘﺎ‬ ِ ٍ ‫ﻀﻲ ﺑ‬ ِ
ْ ‫ﺿْﻲ َﻣﺎ َﱂْ َِﳛ‬
‫ﻒ َﻋَﻤًﺪا‬ ََُ ْ ُ َ َ َ ْ‫ﺴُﻦ أَْن أَﻗ‬
ُ ‫ﺖ َﻣﺎ أَْﺣ‬ َ ْ َ َ ِ ْ‫ﺻﻠﱠﻰ ﷲُ َﻋﻠَْﻴﻪ َوَﺳﻠﱠَﻢ أَْن أَﻗ‬
ُ ‫ﲔ ﻗَـْﻮم ﻓَـُﻘْﻠ‬ ‫أََﻣَﺮِﱐ اﻟﻨﱠِ ﱡ‬
َ ‫ﱯ‬
“The Prophet Ṣallallāhu ‘Alayhi Wasallam commanded me to issue a decree for a group of people, so I said to him, ‘I do not know how to pass a decree properly
oh Prophet of Allah!’ He replied, ‘Allah is with the individual who passes a ruling as long as he does not purposefully neglect this position’”
• The Prophet Sallallāhu ‘Alayhi Wasallam sent some Ṣaḥābah to the various lands around Madῑnah and gave them permission to issue Fatāwā and judicial
decrees (‫)اﻟﻘﻀﺎء‬
Imām Abū Dāwūd Raḥimahullah (d.275 AH) narrates from the companions of Sayyidunā Mu‛ādh RA that they said [4:215 Al-Rayyān]
‫ﺻﻠﱠﻰ ﷲُ َﻋﻠَْﻴِﻪ‬ ِ ِ ِ ِ ِ ِ‫ﷲ؟" ﻗَﺎَل ﻓَﺒ‬ِ ‫ب‬ ِ ‫ب‬
ِ ‫ﷲ ﻗَﺎَل "ﻓَِﺈْن َﱂْ َِﲡْﺪ ِ ْﰲ ﻛِﺘَﺎ‬ ِ ‫ﻀﻲ ﺑِِﻜﺘَﺎ‬
ِ ِ ‫ﻒ ﺗَـْﻘ‬ َ ‫ﺻﻠﱠﻰ ﷲُ َﻋﻠَْﻴِﻪ َوَﺳﻠﱠَﻢ أَن ﻳﱠـ ْﺒـَﻌ‬
َ ‫ﺻﻠﱠﻰ ﷲُ َﻋﻠَْﻴﻪ َوَﺳﻠﱠَﻢ ﻗَﺎَل "ﻓَِﺈْن َﱂْ َِﲡْﺪ ِ ْﰲ ُﺳﻨﱠﺔ َرُﺳْﻮِل ﷲ‬
َ ‫ﺴﻨﱠﺔ َرُﺳْﻮِل ﷲ‬ ُ ْ ْ‫ﻀﺎءٌ؟" ﻗَﺎَل أَﻗ‬
َ َ‫ﻚ ﻗ‬َ َ‫ض ﻟ‬َ ‫ﻀْﻲ إَِذا َﻋَﺮ‬ َ ‫ﺚ ُﻣَﻌﺎًذا إَِﱃ اﻟْﻴََﻤِﻦ ﻗَﺎَل "َﻛْﻴ‬ ‫ﻟَﱠﻤﺎ أََراَد اﻟﻨﱠِ ﱡ‬
َ ‫ﱯ‬
ِ ‫ﺿﻰ رﺳﻮُل‬ ِِ ِ ِِ ِ ِ ِ ‫ب‬ ِ ‫َوَﺳﻠﱠﻢ َوَﻻ ِ ْﰲ ﻛِﺘَﺎ‬
"‫ﷲ‬ ْ ُ َ َ ‫ﺻْﺪَرﻩُ ﻓَـَﻘﺎَل "اْﳊَْﻤُﺪ „ اﻟﱠﺬْي َوﻓﱠَﻖ َرُﺳْﻮَل َرُﺳْﻮِل ﷲ ﻟَﻤﺎ ﻳَـْﺮ‬ َ ‫ﺻﻠﱠﻰ ﷲُ َﻋﻠَْﻴﻪ َوَﺳﻠﱠَﻢ‬ َ ‫ب َرُﺳْﻮُل ﷲ‬ َ َ‫ﷲ؟" ﻗَﺎَل أَْﺟﺘَِﻬُﺪ َرأْﻳِْﻲ َوَﻻ آﻟُْﻮ ﻓ‬
َ ‫ﻀَﺮ‬ َ
“When the Prophet Sallallāhu ‘Alayhi Wasallam decided to send [Sayyidunā] Mu’ādh [Raḍiyallāhu ‘Anhu] to Yemen, he asked, ‘How will you rule if you are
presented with the need to give a judicial ruling?’ He replied, “I will rule according to the book of Allah”. He (the Prophet Sallallāhu ‘Alayhi Wasallam) asked,
‘And if you do not find it in the book of Allah?’ He (Sayyidunā Mu’ādh Raḍiyallāhu ‘Anhu) replied, ‘Then I will rule according to what I find in the Sunnah of the
Prophet Sallallāhu ‘Alayhi Wasallam.” He (the Prophet Sallallāhu ‘Alayhi Wasallam) asked, ‘And if you do not find it in the Sunnah of the Prophet Sallallāhu
‘Alayhi Wasallam?’ He (Sayyidunā Mu’ādh Raḍiyallāhu ‘Anhu) replied, ‘I will apply my own mind and I will not faulter in this.’ The Prophet Sallallāhu ‘Alayhi
Wasallam then hit him (Sayyidunā Mu’ādh RaḍiyAllāhu ‘Anhu) on his chest and said, ‘Praise be to Allah! The One Who has guided the messenger of the
Messenger of Allah to that which pleases the Messenger of Allah’”
‫‪How the Ṣaḥābah used and taught Uṣūl al-Fiqh‬‬
‫‪• Just as the Prophet ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam practically trained the Ṣaḥābah in answering a question, the Ṣaḥābah also trained the‬‬
‫‪Tābi‛ūn in answering a question. Al-Dhahabī (d.748 AH) records [Siyar, 4:103]:‬‬
‫ﺖ ﰲ ﺷﻬﺮﻳﻦ ﺛﻼث ﺣﻴﺾ ﻓﻘﺎل ﻋﻠﻲ ﻟﺸﺮﻳﺢ "اﻗﺾ ﺑﻴﻨﻬﻤﺎ" ﻓﻘﺎل "} أﻣﲑ اﳌﺆﻣﻨﲔ وأﻧﺖ ﻫﺎ ﻫﻨﺎ؟!" ﻗﺎل "اﻗﺾ ﺑﻴﻨﻬﻤﺎ"‬ ‫ﺟﺎءت اﻣﺮأة إﱃ ﻋﻠﻲ رﺿﻲ ﷲ ﻋﻨﻪ ﲣﺎﺻﻢ زوﺟﻬﺎ ﻃﻠﻘﻬﺎ ﻓﻘﺎﻟﺖ ﻗﺪ ﺣﻀ ُ‬
‫ﺖ‬‫ﻗﺎل "إن ﺟﺎءت ﻣﻦ ﺑﻄﺎﻧﺔ أﻫﻠﻬﺎ ﻣﻦ ﻳﺮﺿﻰ دﻳﻨﻪ وأﻣﺎﻧﺘﻪ ﻳﺰﻋﻢ أ‪t‬ﺎ ﺣﺎﺿﺖ ﺛﻼث ﺣﻴﺾ ﺗﻄﻬﺮ ﻋﻨﺪ ﻛﻞ ﻗﺮء وﺗﺼﻠّﻲ ﺟﺎز ﳍﺎ وإّﻻ ﻓﻼ ﻗﺎل ﻋﻠّﻲ "ﻗﺎﻟﻮن" وﻗﺎﻟﻮن ﺑﻠﺴﺎن اﻟﺮوم‪ :‬أﺣﺴﻨ َ‬
‫‪• Imām al-Nasā’ī (d.303 AH) narrates [Dār al-Ta’ṣīl, 8:288] from ‘Abdullah ibn Mas‘ūd RA that he said:‬‬
‫إﻧﻪ ﻗﺪ أﺗﻰ ﻋﻠﻴﻨﺎ زﻣﺎن وﻟﺴﻨﺎ ﻧﻘﻀﻲ وﻟﺴﻨﺎ ﻫﻨﺎﻟﻚ ﰒ إن ﷲ ﻋﺰ وﺟﻞ ﻗّﺪر ﻋﻠﻴﻨﺎ أن ﺑﻠﻐﻨﺎ ﻣﺎ ﺗﺮون ﻓﻤﻦ ﻋﺮض ﻟﻪ ﻣﻨﻜﻢ ﻗﻀﺎء ﺑﻌﺪ اﻟﻴﻮم ﻓﻠﻴﻘﺾ ﲟﺎ ﰲ ﻛﺘﺎب ﷲ ﻓﺈن ﺟﺎءﻩ أﻣﺮ ﻟﻴﺲ ﰲ ﻛﺘﺎب ﷲ‬
‫ﻓﻠﻴﻘﺾ ﲟﺎ ﻗﻀﻰ ﺑﻪ ﻧﺒﻴﻪ ﺻﻠﻰ ﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ وﺳﻠﻢ ﻓﺈن ﺟﺎءﻩ أﻣﺮ ﻟﻴﺲ ﰲ ﻛﺘﺎب ﷲ ﻋﺰ وﺟﻞ وﻻ ﻗﻀﻰ ﺑﻪ ﻧﺒﻴﻪ ﺻﻠﻰ ﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ وﺳﻠﻢ ﻓﻠﻴﻘﺾ ﲟﺎ ﻗﻀﻰ ﺑﻪ اﻟﺼﺎﳊﻮن ﻓﺈن ﺟﺎءﻩ أﻣﺮ ﻟﻴﺲ ﰲ ﻛﺘﺎب ﷲ وﻻ‬
‫ﻗﻀﻰ ﺑﻪ ﻧﺒﻴﻪ ﺻﻠﻰ ﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ وﺳﻠﻢ وﻻ ﻗﻀﻰ ﺑﻪ اﻟﺼﺎﳊﻮن ﻓﻠﻴﺠﺘﻬﺪ وﻻ ﻳﻘﻮل إﱐ أﺧﺎف وإﱐ أﺧﺎف ﻓﺈن اﳊﻼل ﺑﲔ واﳊﺮام ﺑﲔ وﺑﲔ ذﻟﻚ أﻣﻮر ﻣﺸﺘﺒﻬﺎت ﻓﺪع ﻣﺎ ﻳﺮﻳﺒﻚ إﱃ ﻣﺎ ﻻ ﻳﺮﻳﺒﻚ‬
‫‪• Imām al-Bayhaqῑ (d.458 AH) has narrated [Al-Madkhal, 2:426] from Idrῑs al-Awdῑ Raḥimahullah that he said:‬‬
‫ﺿﻲ ﷲ َﻋْﻨﻪُ إَِﱃ أَِﰊ ﻣﻮﺳﻰ ر ِ‬
‫ِ‬ ‫ِ‬ ‫ِ‬ ‫ِ‬
‫ﺿَﻲ ﷲُ َﻋْﻨﻪُ‬ ‫ْ ُْ َ َ‬ ‫أَْﺧَﺮَج إِﻟَْﻴـﻨَﺎ َﺳﻌْﻴُﺪ ﺑُْﻦ أَِ ْﰊ ﺑُـْﺮَدَة ﻛﺘَﺎً‪ Q‬ﻓَـَﻘﺎَل َﻫَﺬا ﻛﺘَﺎ ُ‬
‫ب ﻋَُﻤَﺮ َر َ ُ‬
‫‪Sa‛ῑd ibn Abῑ Burdah then read out the letter which had the following words in it:‬‬
‫ﻚ واْﻋﻤْﺪ إَِﱃ أَﺣﺒِﻬﺎ إَِﱃ ِ‬
‫ﷲ َوأَْﺷﺒَِﻬَﻬﺎ ِﻓْﻴَﻤﺎ ﺗَـَﺮى‬ ‫ََّ‬
‫ِ ِ‬ ‫ف اْﻷَْﻣﺜَﺎَل َواْﻷَْﺷﺒَﺎَﻩ ُﰒﱠ ِﻗ ِ‬
‫ﺲ اْﻷُُﻣْﻮَر ﻋْﻨَﺪ ذَﻟ َ َ َ‬ ‫ََ‬ ‫ْ َ‬ ‫ﺻْﺪِرَك ِﳑﱠﺎ َﱂْ ﻳَـ ْﺒـﻠُﻐْ َ‬
‫ﻚ ِﰲ اﻟُْﻘﺮآِن واﻟﺴﻨﱠِﺔ ﻓَـﺘـﻌﱠﺮ ِ‬ ‫ِ‬ ‫ِ‬
‫اﻟَْﻔْﻬُﻢ ﻓْﻴَﻤﺎ َﳜْﺘَﻠُﺞ ِ ْﰲ َ‬
‫‪• Imām al-Dārimῑ (d.255 AH) has narrated in his Al-Sunan [1:285 Dār al-Ta’ṣīl] that Sayyidunā ‘Abdullah ibn Yazῑd Raḍiyallāhu ‘Anhu said:‬‬
‫ِ‬ ‫ِ‬ ‫ِ‬ ‫ِ‬ ‫ِ‬ ‫ِ‬ ‫ِ‬ ‫ِ‬ ‫َﻛﺎَن اﺑْﻦ َﻋﺒﱠﺎ ٍ ِ‬
‫س َرﺿَﻲ ﷲُ َﻋ ْﻨـُﻬَﻤﺎ إِذَا ُﺳﺌَﻞ َﻋِﻦ اْﻷَْﻣِﺮ ﻓََﻜﺎَن ِﰲ اﻟُْﻘْﺮآن أَْﺧ ََﱪ ﺑِﻪ َوإِْن َﱂْ ﻳَُﻜْﻦ ِﰲ اﻟُْﻘْﺮآن َوَﻛﺎَن َﻋْﻦ َرُﺳْﻮِل ﷲ َ‬
‫ﺻﻠﱠﻰ ﷲُ َﻋﻠَْﻴﻪ َوَﺳﻠﱠَﻢ أَْﺧ ََﱪ ﺑِﻪ ﻓَِﺈْن َﱂْ ﻳَُﻜْﻦ ﻓَـَﻌْﻦ أَِ ْﰊ ﺑَْﻜٍﺮ َوﻋَُﻤَﺮ َرﺿَﻲ ﷲُ‬ ‫ُ‬
‫َﻋ ْﻨـﻬﻤﺎ ﻓَِﺈْن َﱂ ﻳُﻜﻦ ﻗَﺎَل ِﻓﻴِﻪ ﺑِﺮأْﻳِﻪِ‬
‫ْ َ‬ ‫َْ ْ‬ ‫َُ‬
‫‪• Imām al-Darimῑ (d.255 AH) has narrated in his Al-Sunan [1:285 Dār al-Ta’ṣīl] that Sayyidunā ‘Umar raḍiyallāhu ‘anhu wrote to Shurayḥ ibn‬‬
‫‪al-Ḥārith raḥimahullah:‬‬
‫ب ِ‬
‫ﷲ َوَﱂْ ﻳَُﻜْﻦ ِﻓْﻴِﻪ‬ ‫ﺾ ِ‪َ°‬ﺎ ﻓَِﺈْن َﺟﺎَءَك َﻣﺎ ﻟَْﻴﺲ ِ ْﰲ ﻛِﺘَﺎ ِ‬ ‫ﺻﻠﱠﻰ ﷲُ َﻋﻠَْﻴِﻪ َوَﺳﻠﱠَﻢ ﻓَﺎﻗْ ِ‬ ‫ِ‬ ‫ﻚ ﻋْﻨﻪ اﻟ ِﺮﺟﺎُل ﻓَِﺈْن ﺟﺎءَك ﻣﺎ ﻟَﻴﺲ ِﰲ ﻛِﺘﺎ ِ ِ‬ ‫ِ‬ ‫ﷲ ﻓَﺎﻗْ ِ ِ‬ ‫ب ِ‬‫إِْن َﺟﺎَءَك َﺷﻲءٌ ِ ْﰲ ﻛِﺘَﺎ ِ‬
‫َ‬ ‫ب ﷲ ﻓَﺎﻧْﻈُْﺮ ُﺳﻨﱠﺔَ َرُﺳْﻮِل ﷲ َ‬ ‫ََ َ ْ َ ْ َ‬ ‫ﺾ ﺑِﻪ َوَﻻ ﺗَـْﻠﻔْﺘ َ َ ُ ّ َ‬ ‫ْ‬
‫ي‬ ‫َ‬
‫أ‬ ‫ﱰ‬ ‫ﺧ‬ ‫ﺎ‬‫ﻓ‬ ‫ﻚ‬ ‫ﻠ‬‫ـ‬ ‫ﺒ‬‫ـ‬‫ﻗ‬ ‫ﺪ‬‫ﺣ‬ ‫َ‬‫أ‬ ‫ِ‬
‫ﻪ‬ ‫ﻴ‬ ‫ِ‬
‫ﻓ‬ ‫ﻢ‬ ‫ﱠ‬
‫ﻠ‬ ‫ﻜ‬ ‫ﺘ‬‫ـ‬
‫ُ َ َْ َ َ َ َ َْ َ َ َ ْ ْ َ ٌ َ ْ َ َ َ ْ َ ْ ﱠ‬ ‫ﻳ‬ ‫ﱂ‬‫و‬ ‫ﻢ‬‫ﱠ‬
‫ﻠ‬ ‫ﺳ‬‫و‬ ‫ِ‬
‫ﻪ‬ ‫ﻴ‬‫ﻠ‬ ‫ﻋ‬ ‫ﷲ‬ ‫ﻰ‬ ‫ﱠ‬
‫ﻠ‬ ‫ﺻ‬
‫َ‬ ‫ﷲ‬‫ِ‬ ‫ل‬‫ِ‬ ‫ﻮ‬ ‫ﺳ‬ ‫ر‬ ‫ِ‬
‫ﺔ‬ ‫ﱠ‬
‫ﻨ‬ ‫ﺳ‬ ‫ﰲ‬‫ِ‬ ‫ﻦ‬ ‫ﻜ‬
‫َ َْ َ ُ ْ ْ ُ َ ُ ْ‬ ‫ﻳ‬ ‫ﱂ‬‫و‬ ‫ِ‬
‫ﷲ‬ ‫ب‬ ‫ِ‬ ‫ﺎ‬ ‫ﺘ‬‫ِ‬‫ﻛ‬ ‫ﰲ‬‫ِ‬ ‫ﺲ‬ ‫ﻴ‬ ‫ﻟ‬ ‫ﺎ‬ ‫ﻣ‬ ‫ك‬ ‫ء‬ ‫ﺎ‬
‫ُ َ ُ ْ َ ْ َ َ َ َ َْ َ ْ َ‬‫ﺟ‬ ‫ن‬ ‫ِ‬
‫ﺈ‬‫ﻓ‬ ‫ِ‬
‫ﻪ‬ ‫ِ‬
‫ﺑ‬ ‫ﺬ‬ ‫ﺨ‬ ‫ﻓ‬ ‫س‬ ‫ﺎ‬ ‫ﱠ‬
‫ﻨ‬ ‫ﻟ‬ ‫ا‬ ‫ِ‬
‫ﻪ‬ ‫ﻴ‬‫ﻠ‬ ‫ﻋ‬ ‫ﻊ‬ ‫ﻤ‬ ‫ﺘ‬‫ﺟ‬ ‫ا‬ ‫ﺎ‬ ‫ﻣ‬ ‫ﺮ‬ ‫ﻈ‬ ‫ﻧ‬ ‫ﺎ‬‫ﻓ‬ ‫ﻢ‬ ‫ﱠ‬
‫ﻠ‬ ‫ﺳ‬
‫ُ َ َْ َ َ َ َ ْ ُْ َ ْ َ َ َ َ َْ‬‫و‬ ‫ِ‬
‫ﻪ‬ ‫ﻴ‬‫ﻠ‬ ‫ﻋ‬ ‫ﷲ‬ ‫ﻰ‬ ‫ﱠ‬
‫ﻠ‬ ‫ﺻ‬‫َ‬
‫ِ‬
‫ﷲ‬ ‫ل‬‫ُﺳﻨﱠﺔٌ ِﻣْﻦ رُﺳْﻮ ِ‬
‫َ‬
‫ﻚ‬ ‫ﱠ‬ ‫ِ‬
‫ﺖ أَْن َ‪َ³‬ﱠﺧَﺮ ﻓَـﺘَﺄَﱠﺧْﺮ َوَﻻ أََرى اﻟﺘﱠﺄَﱡﺧَﺮ إﻻ َﺧ ْ ًﲑ اﻟَ َ‬ ‫ِ‬ ‫ِ‬
‫ﻚ ُﰒّ ﺗَـﺘَـَﻘﱠﺪَم ﻓَـﺘَـَﻘﱠﺪْم َوإْن ﺷْﺌ َ‬ ‫ِ‬ ‫ِ‬
‫ﺖ أَْن َﲡْﺘَﻬَﺪ ﺑَﺮأّﻳْ َ‬ ‫ِ‬ ‫ِ‬
‫ﺖ إْن ﺷْﺌ َ‬ ‫ِ‬
‫اْﻷَْﻣَﺮﻳِْﻦ ﺷْﺌ َ‬
The Development of the two approaches to Fiqh: Ahl al-Ra’y and Ahl al-Hadīth
• ʿUmar RA during his lifetime preferred to keep the Ṣaḥābah in Madīnah order to consult with them on issues of jurisprudence.
• However, he did allow some to travel, for example, upon creating the city of Kūfah in 17 AH, he sent ʿAbdullah ibn Masʿūd to
teach them, informing the people [Faḍā’il al-Ṣaḥābah li Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal, pg.841]:
ِ ‫وﻗَْﺪ آﺛَـﺮﺗُُﻜﻢ ﺑِﻌﺒِﺪ‬
‫ﷲ ﺑِْﻦ َﻣْﺴﻌُْﻮٍد َﻋﻠَﻰ ﻧَـْﻔِﺴْﻲ‬ َْ ْ ْ َ
• After the demise of ʿUmar RA in 23 AH, the Ṣaḥābah began to spread to the various Islamic lands spreading their knowledge,
leading to an increase in differences of opinion amongst the Ṣaḥābah. Dr. Muṣṭafā Bashīr al-Ṭarāblusī writes [Manhaj al-Baḥth
wa’l-Fatwā, pg.24]:
‫وﺟﺪ اﺧﺘﻼف ﰲ اﻷﺣﻜﺎم اﻹﺟﺘﻬﺎدﻳﺔ ﺑﲔ اﻟﺼﺤﺎﺑﺔ رﺿﻲ ﷲ ﻋﻨﻬﻢ ﺑﻴﺪ أﻧﻪ ﻛﺎن ﺿﻴﻘﺎ ﰲ اﻟﻔﱰة اﻷوﱃ ﻣﻦ ﻋﻬﺪﻫﻢ ﰒ اﺗﺴﻊ ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﺑﻌﺪ وﻳﻌﻮد اﻟﺴﺒﺐ ﰲ ذﻟﻚ إﱃ وﺟﻮدﻫﻢ ﰲ ﻣﻜﺎن واﺣﺪ‬
‫ﻟﺮﺣﻴﻞ ﻋﻦ‬j ‫وﻫﻮ اﳌﺪﻳﻨﺔ أول اﻷﻣﺮ ﳑﺎ ﺟﻌﻞ اﺟﺘﻤﺎع ﻛﻠﻤﺘﻬﻢ ﻣﻴﺴﻮرا زد ﻋﻠﻰ ﻫﺬا ﺑﺴﺎﻃﺔ اﳊﻴﺎة وﺑﻌﺪﻫﺎ ﻋﻦ اﻟﺘﻌﻘﻴﺪ ﰲ ﺗﻠﻚ اﻟﻔﱰة ﺑﻴﺪ أﻧﻪ ﺑﻮﻓﺎة ﻋﻤﺮ اﺧﺘﻠﻒ اﻷﻣﺮ ﻓﺒﺪأ ﺑﻌﺾ اﻟﺼﺤﺎﺑﺔ‬
‫اﳌﺪﻳﻨﺔ ﺑﻌﺪ أن ﻛﺎن ﻋﻤﺮ ﻗﺪ ﻣﻨﻌﻬﻢ ﻣﻦ ذﻟﻚ واﲣﺬوا ﺑﻌﺾ اﻟﺒﻠﺪان اﻷﺧﺮى ﻣﻮﻃﻨﺎ ﳍﻢ‬
‫ﻛﺎن ﻣﻦ ﻧﺘﻴﺠﺔ ذﻟﻚ أن ﻳﻔﱵ ﻛﻞ ﺻﺤﺎﰊ ﺣﺴﺐ اﺟﺘﻬﺎدﻩ ﰲ اﳌﺴﺎﺋﻞ اﳌﻌﺮوﺿﺔ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ واﺳﺘﺘﺒﻊ ذﻟﻚ وﺟﻮد اﺧﺘﻼف ﺑﻴﻨﻬﻢ ﰲ اﻟﻔﺘﻮى ﻓﺎﳋﻠﻴﻔﺔ ﱂ ﻳﻌﺪ ﻳﺴﺘﻄﻴﻊ ﲨﻌﻬﻢ ﺑﺴﻬﻮﻟﺔ ﻻﺳﺘﺸﺎر|ﻢ‬
‫ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﳚﺪ ﻣﻦ اﳌﺴﺎﺋﻞ واﳋﺮوج ﺑﺮأي ﻣﻮّﺣﺪ ﰲ اﳌﺴﺄﻟﺔ اﳌﻄﺮوﺣﺔ ﻛﻤﺎ أ‚ﻢ ﱂ ﻳﻜﻮﻧﻮا ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺴﺘﻮى واﺣﺪ ﰲ ﺣﻔﻈﻬﻢ واﻃﻼﻋﻬﻢ ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﺴﻨﺔ ﻓﻜﻞ ﻳﻔﱵ ﲟﺎ ﻳﻌﻠﻢ وﲟﺎ ﻳﻔﻬﻢ ﳑﺎ ﺗﻨﺎﻫﻰ إﻟﻴﻪ ﻋﻠﻤﻪ‬
‫ﻣﻦ اﻟﻨﺼﻮص اﻟﱵ ﺑﲔ ﻳﺪﻳﻪ ﻓﺈذا أﺿﻔﻨﺎ إﱃ ذﻟﻚ ﻛﻠﻪ اﺧﺘﻼف اﻟﺒﻴﺌﺎت اﻟﱵ ﻫﺎﺟﺮوا إﻟﻴﻬﺎ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻫﺬﻩ اﻷﺧﲑة ﻋﺎﻣﻼ آﺧﺮ ﻳﻀﺎف إﱃ اﻟﻌﻮاﻣﻞ اﻟﺴﺎﺑﻘﺔ أّدت إﱃ اﺧﺘﻼﻓﻬﻢ ﰲ اﻹﺟﺘﻬﺎد‬
Ṣalāḥ Abu’l Ḥāj writes [Al-Madkhal al-Mufasṣāl, pg.80]:
‫وﻛﺎن ﻋﻤﺮ ﺑﻦ اﳋﻄﺎب رﺿﻲ ﷲ ﻋﻨﻪ ﺣﺮﻳﺼﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ إﺑﻘﺎﺋﻬﻢ ﰲ اﳌﺪﻳﻨﺔ اﳌﻨﻮرة ﻻﺳﺘﺸﺎر|ﻢ‬
• The Ṣaḥābah would differ over the reasoning/cause (‫ )ﻋﻠﺔ‬behind a specific ruling given by the Prophet Ṣallallāhu ‘Alayhi Wasallam,
e.g. Did the Prophet Ṣallallāhu ‘Alayhi Wasallam prohibit the action because of this reason or was it because of another reason?
This would then lead to differences in the rulings extrapolated from this specific ruling given by the Prophet Ṣallallāhu ‘Alayhi
Wasallam. Shamsul A’immah al-Sarakhsῑ (d.483 AH) quotes from Imām al-Shāfi‛ ῑ (d.204 AH) that he said [Uṣūl al-Sarakhsī]:
‫ﺻﻒ اﻟﱠِﺬي ُﻫَﻮ ِﻋﻠّﺔ ِﰲ اﻟﻨﱠﺺ‬ ‫ﻓَِﺈن اﻟ ﱠ‬
ْ ‫ﺧﺘﻼﻓﻬﻢ ِﰲ اﻟَْﻮ‬ƒ ‫ﺼَﺤﺎﺑَﺔ اْﺧﺘﻠُﻔﻮا ِﰲ اﻟُْﻔُﺮوع‬
The Development of the two approaches to Fiqh: Ahl al-Ra’y and Ahl al-Hadīth
• Eventually, two cities became the leading centres for Islāmic law and knowledge; Madīnah and Kūfah [Al-Madkhal al-Mufasṣal]
‫‪The Development of the two approaches to Fiqh: Ahl al-Ra’y and Ahl al-Hadīth‬‬
‫‪• The leading scholars were Saʿīd ibn al-Musayyab in Madīnah and Ibrāhīm al-Nakhaʿī in Kūfah. Shāh Waliullah writes [Al-Inṣāf, pg.29]:‬‬
‫وˆﳉﻤﻠﺔ اﺧﺘﻠﻔﺖ ﻣﺬاﻫﺐ أﺻﺤﺎب اﻟﻨﱯ ﺻﻠﻰ ﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ وﺳﻠﻢ وأﺧﺬ ﻋﻨﻬﻢ ﻣﻦ اﻟﺘﺎﺑﻌﻮن ﻛﻞ واﺣﺪ ﻣﺎ ﺗﻴﺴﺮ ﻟﻪ ﻓﺤﻔﻆ ﻣﺎ ﲰﻊ ﻣﻦ ﺣﺪﻳﺚ رﺳﻮل ﷲ ﺻﻠﻰ ﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ وﺳﻠﻢ‪...‬وﺳﻌﻴﺪ ﺑﻦ اﳌﺴﻴﺐ وﺳﺎﱂ ﺑﻦ ﻋﺒﺪ ﷲ ﺑﻦ ﻋﻤﺮ ﰲ اﳌﺪﻳﻨﺔ وﺑﻌﺪﳘﺎ اﻟﺰﻫﺮي‬
‫واﻟﻘﺎﺿﻲ ﳛﲕ ﺑﻦ ﺳﻌﻴﺪ ورﺑﻴﻌﺔ ﺑﻦ ﻋﺒﺪ اﻟﺮﲪﻦ وﻋﻄﺎء ﺑﻦ أﰊ رˆح ﲟﻜﺔ وإﺑﺮاﻫﻴﻢ اﻟﻨﺨﻌﻲ واﻟﺸﻌﱯ ˆﻟﻜﻮﻓﺔ واﳊﺴﻦ اﻟﺒﺼﺮي ˆﻟﺒﺼﺮة وﻃﺎوس ﺑﻦ ﻛﻴﺴﺎن ˆﻟﻴﻤﻦ وﻣﻜﺤﻮل ˆﻟﺸﺎم ﻓﺄﻇﻤﺄ ﷲ أﻛﺒﺎدا إﱃ ﻋﻠﻮﻣﻬﻢ ﻓﺮﻏﺒﻮا ﻓﻴﻬﺎ وأﺧﺬوا ﻋﻨﻬﻢ اﳊﺪﻳﺚ وﻓﺘﺎوى‬
‫اﻟﺼﺤﺎﺑﺔ وأﻗﺎوﻳﻠﻬﻢ وﻣﺬاﻫﺐ ﻫﺆﻻء اﻟﻌﻠﻤﺎء وﲢﻘﻴﻘﺎ ﻢ ﻣﻦ ﻋﻨﺪ أﻧﻔﺴﻬﻢ واﺳﺘﻔﱴ ﻣﻨﻬﻢ اﳌﺴﺘﻔﺘﻮن ودرات اﳌﺴﺎﺋﻞ ﺑﻴﻨﻬﻢ ورﻓﻌﺖ إﻟﻴﻬﻢ اﻷﻗﻀﻴﺔ وﻛﺎن ﺳﻌﻴﺪ ﺑﻦ اﳌﺴﻴﺐ وإﺑﺮاﻫﻴﻢ اﻟﻨﺨﻌﻲ وأﻣﺜﺎﳍﻤﺎ ﲨﻌﻮا أﺑﻮاب اﻟﻔﻘﻪ أﲨﻌﻬﺎ وﻛﺎن ﳍﻢ ﰲ ﻛﻞ ˆب أﺻﻮل‬
‫ﺗﻠّﻘﻮﻫﺎ ﻣﻦ اﻟﺴﻠﻒ وﻛﺎن ﺳﻌﻴﺪ وأﺻﺤﺎﺑﻪ ﻳﺬﻫﺒﻮن إﱃ أن أﻫﻞ اﳊﺮﻣﲔ أﺛﺒﺖ اﻟﻨﺎس ﰲ اﻟﻔﻘﻪ وأﺻﻞ ﻣﺬﻫﺒﻬﻢ ﰲ ﻓﺘﺎوى ﻋﻤﺮ وﻋﺜﻤﺎن وﻗﻀﺎ‪i‬ﳘﺎ وﻓﺘﺎوى ﻋﺒﺪ ﷲ ﺑﻦ ﻋﻤﺮ وﻋﺎﺋﺸﺔ واﺑﻦ ﻋﺒﺎس ‪...‬وﻛﺎن إﺑﺮاﻫﻴﻢ وأﺻﺤﺎﺑﻪ ﻳﺮون أن ﻋﺒﺪ ﷲ ﺑﻦ ﻣﺴﻌﻮد‬
‫وأﺻﺤﺎﺑﻪ أﺛﺒﺖ اﻟﻨﺎس ﰲ اﻟﻔﻘﻪ‪...‬وﻛﺎن ﺳﻌﻴﺪ ﺑﻦ اﳌﺴﻴﺐ ﻟﺴﺎن ﻓﻘﻬﺎء اﳌﺪﻳﻨﺔ وﻛﺎن أﺣﻔﻈﻬﻢ ﻟﻘﻀﺎ‪ i‬ﻋﻤﺮ وﳊﺪﻳﺚ أﰊ ﻫﺮﻳﺮة وإﺑﺮاﻫﻴﻢ ﻟﺴﺎن ﻓﻘﻬﺎء اﻟﻜﻮﻓﺔ ﻓﺈذا ﺗﻜﻠﻤﺎ ﺑﺸﻲء وﱂ ﻳﻨﺴﺒﺎﻩ إﱃ أﺣﺪ ﻓﺈﻧﻪ ﰲ اﻷﻛﺜﺮ ﻣﻨﺴﻮب إﱃ أﺣﺪ ﻣﻦ اﻟﺴﻠﻒ ﺻﺮﳛﺎ أو‬
‫إﳝﺎء وﳓﻮ ذﻟﻚ ﻓﺎﺟﺘﻤﻊ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﻤﺎ ﻓﻘﻬﺎء ﺑﻠﺪﳘﺎ وأﺧﺬوا ﻋﻨﻬﻤﺎ وﻋﻘﻠﻮﻩ وﺧّﺮﺟﻮا ﻋﻠﻴﻪ‬
‫‪• Ibrāhīm al-Nakhāʿī’s approach in Fiqh was unique and more based upon epistemological foundations (rational) than other scholars‬‬
‫‪• As Masā’il started to increase due to new converts, two fairly distinct approaches within the scholars became clear in Fiqh:‬‬
‫)‪Ø The Ahl al-Ḥadīth (also known as Ahl al-Lafẓ‬‬
‫)‪Ø The Ahl al-Ra’y (also known as Ahl al-Maʿānī‬‬
‫‪Many scholars, including Muṣṭafā al-Ṭarāblusī, Ayman Ṣāliḥ and Dr. Anas Sarmīnī feel that these two approaches existed from the time of the Ṣaḥābah. Dr.‬‬
‫‪Muṣṭafā writes [Manhaj al-Baḥth wa’l-Fatwā, pg.27]:‬‬
‫ﻋﻠﻤﻨﺎ ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﺳﺒﻖ أن اﻟﺼﺤﺎﺑﺔ ﻛﺎﻧﻮا ﻳﺒﺤﺜﻮن ﻋﻦ ﺣﻜﻢ ﻣﺎ اﺳﺘﺠﺪ ﻣﻦ اﳌﺴﺎﺋﻞ ﰲ ﻧﺼﻮص اﻟﻜﺘﺎب واﻟﺴﻨﺔ ﻓﺈن ﱂ ﳚﺪوا ﻧﺼﺎ ﰲ ذﻟﻚ ﻋﻤﺪوا إﱃ اﻹﺟﺘﻬﺎد ‪T‬ﻟﺮأي ﻏﲑ أن ﻣﻨﻬﻢ ﻣﻦ ﻛﺎن ﻳﺘﻮﺳﻊ ﰲ اﻟﺮأي ﻓﻴﺠﺘﻬﺪ ﰲ ﻣﻌﺮﻓﺔ اﻟﻌﻠﻞ واﳌﺼﺎﱀ ﻓﻴﺒﲏ اﻷﺣﻜﺎم ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ‬
‫وﻣﻨﻬﻢ ﻣﻦ ﻛﺎن ﻳﻘﻒ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺣﺪود اﻟﻨﺺ ﻻ ﻳﺘﻌﺪاﻫﺎ أﺧﺬا ‪T‬ﻟﻮرع واﻹﺣﺘﻴﺎط و‪i‬ﺬﻳﻦ اﳌﺴﻠﻜﲔ ﰲ ﺗﻌﺮف اﻷﺣﻜﺎم اﻟﺸﺮﻋﻴﺔ وﺟﺪت اﻟﺒﺬرة اﻷوﱃ ﳌﺪرﺳﱵ اﳊﺪﻳﺚ واﻟﺮأي ﰲ اﻟﻔﻘﻪ اﻹﺳﻼﻣﻲ ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﺑﻌﺪ‬
‫‪Dr. Anas Sarmīnī writes [pg.25]:‬‬
‫ﻋﻠﻰ أن اﳌﺴﻠﻚ اﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻠﻲ ﺟﻠﻲ ﻋﻨﺪ ﻋﻤﺮ واﺑﻦ ﻋﺒﺎس وﻋﺎﺋﺸﺔ رﺿﻲ ﷲ ﻋﻨﻬﻢ واﳌﺴﻠﻚ اﻟﻠﻔﻈﻲ ﻋﻨﺪ أﰊ ﺑﻜﺮ واﺑﻦ ﻋﻤﺮ وأﰊ ﻫﺮﻳﺮة وﻓﻴﻤﻦ ﺟﺎء ﺑﻌﺪﻫﻢ ﻣﻦ اﻟﺘﺎﺑﻌﻲ ﻓﺎﳌﺴﻠﻚ اﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻠﻲ ﻋﻨﺪ إﺑﺮاﻫﻴﻢ اﻟﻨﺨﻌﻲ واﳊﺴﻦ اﻟﺒﺼﺮي ﺟﻠﻲ ﻣﻘﺎﺑﻞ اﻟﺸﻌﱯ واﺑﻦ ﺳﲑﻳﻦ‬
‫واﻟﻘﺎﺳﻢ ﺑﻦ ﳏﻤﺪ اﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﻏﻠﺐ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﻢ اﻟﺘﻤﺴﻚ ‪T‬ﻟﻈﻮاﻫﺮ‬
‫?‪Can anyone think of any examples of a story wherein you can see Ahl al-Lafẓ and Ahl al-Maʿānī within the Ṣaḥābah‬‬
‫‪• The story of the day of Qurayẓah when the Prophet ṣallallāhu ʿalayhi wasallam told them to read Ẓuhr/Aṣar when they reach Banū Qurayẓah.‬‬
‫‪• Another example is found in Sunan Abī Dāwūd [1:315 Al-Rayyān] ʿAmr ibn al-Āas RA leading his colleagues in Ṣalāh despite being in the state of Janābah‬‬
‫‪", the Prophet smiled‬وﻻ ﺗﻘﺘﻠﻮا أﻧﻔﺴﻜﻢ" ‪because the water was very cold, when the Prophet found out, ʿAmr quoted the verse‬‬
‫‪• Another example is found in Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī [5:161 Dār al-Minhāj] when the Prophet sent out a campaign and made a person a leader whilst commanding‬‬
‫‪the rest to obey him. The commander asked them to walk into a fire, many refused, later on the Prophet ṣallallāhu ʿalayhi wasallam said that they had done‬‬
‫‪the right thing‬‬
The Ahl al-Ḥadīth (also referred to as Ahl al-Lafẓ)
The Ahl al-Ḥadῑth had the following qualities:
1) They considered jurisprudential authority to lie only in the Aḥādῑth, this meant that if one was not a scholar of Ḥadῑth, then he had no authority to
issue Fatāwā
2) They assessed these Aḥādῑth using their own methodology and principles, placing significant attention to the chain of narration
Some Ahl al-Ḥadῑth would assess Aḥādῑth in a similar fashion but placed great significance on the practice of the community, such as Imām Mālik
Raḥimahullah (d.179 AH) who assessed the Aḥādῑth he had acquired by considering the communal practice of the people of Madῑnah. This means
that if a ḥadῑth contradicted the practice of the people of Madῑnah, it would be considered a defect in the authenticity of the ḥadῑth.
In fact, this may be the reason as to why the ‫ اﳌﻮﻃﺄ‬is titled as this; ‘the trodden path’. Ahmed el Shamsy writes [pg.34]:

Dr. Anas Sarmīnī states [pg.40]:

‫ﳌﻮﻃﺄ ﲨﻌﻪ ﻓﻴﻪ اﻷﺣﺎدﻳﺚ اﻟﱵ ﺗﻮاﻃﺄ اﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﰲ اﳌﺪﻳﻨﺔ‬o ‫وﻫﺬا ﻣﻦ ﻣﺮﺟﺤﺎت أن ﻣﺮادﻩ ﺑﺘﺴﻤﻴﺔ ﻛﺘﺎﺑﻪ‬
This is whilst the loyal Ahl al-Ḥadῑth considered authority to lie only in the Aḥādῑth of the Prophet Ṣallallāhu ‘Alayhi Wasallam and that communal
practice should play no role in one’s assessment of Aḥādῑth.
3) If the Ḥadῑth did not provide a ruling, the Ahl al-Ḥadῑth would prefer to remain silent on the issue.
When Asad ibn Furāt asked Imām Mālik (d.179 AH) too many questions, he responded [Tartīb al-Madārik, 3:292]:
‫ﻟِْﻌَﺮاِق‬oِ ‫ﻚ‬ َ ‫ﺖ ِﺳْﻠِﺴﻠٍَﺔ إَِذا َﻛﺎَن َﻛَﺬا َﻛﺎَن َﻛَﺬا إِْن أََرْد‬
َ ‫ت َﻫَﺬا ﻓَـَﻌﻠَْﻴ‬ ُ ‫ِﺳْﻠِﺴﻠَﺔٌ ﺑِْﻨ‬
“Chain [of questions] after chain [of questions], if so and so happens then so and so will be the ruling; if you want this then go travel to ‘Irāq”
The Ahl al-Ḥadīth (also referred to as Ahl al-Lafẓ)
• This meant that they did not prefer to extract new rulings for issues that had not yet occurred. It does not mean that they outright rejected Qiyās.
Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr (d.463 AH) indicates to this as he states [Jāmiʿ Bayān, 2:101]:
‫ﰐ ﺑﻌﺪ‬‰ ‫وﺳﺎﺋﺮ أﻫﻞ اﻟﺴﻨّﺔ وأﻫﻞ اﻟﻌﻠﻢ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺎ ذﻛﺮت ﻟﻚ إﻻ أّن ﻣﻨﻬﻢ ﻣﻦ ﻻ ﻳﺮى اﻟﻘﻮل ﺑﺬﻟﻚ إﻻ ﻋﻨﺪ ﻧﺰول اﻟﻨّﺎزﻟﺔ وﻣﻨﻬﻢ ﻣﻦ أﺟﺎز اﳉﻮاب ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﳌﻦ‬...‫وﻋﻠﻰ ذﻟﻚ ﻛﺎن اﻟﻌﻠﻤﺎء ﻗﺪﳝﺎ وﺣﺪﻳﺜﺎ ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻳﻨﺰل ~ﻢ وﱂ ﻳﺰاﻟﻮا ﻋﻠﻰ إﺟﺎزة اﻟﻘﻴﺎس‬
‫وﻫﻢ أﻛﺜﺮ أﺋﻤﺔ اﻟﻔﺘﻮى‬
• While the Ahl al-Ḥadῑth were all similar in their core principles, there were of course nuances and different shades within the group. Whilst some
scholars applied some to the methodologies of the Ahl al-Ra’y, such as Saʽῑd ibn al-Musayyib raḥimahullah – who despite being from the Ahl al-
Ḥadῑth did extrapolate new rulings, others were tremendously averse to any of the methodologies of the Ahl al-Ra’y.
• A prime example is Imām Mālik, who did engage in Al-Ra’y significantly considering his extended use of ‫( اﳌﺼﻠﺤﺔ‬widespread benefit) and ‫ﻋﻤﻞ أﻫﻞ اﳌﺪﻳﻨﺔ‬
to avoid practising a singular Ḥadīth. Dr. Anas Sarmīnī writes [pg.29]:
‫واﻷﺻﺢ ﰲ ﻣﺎﻟﻚ أﻧﻪ ﻣﻦ أﻫﻞ اﻟﺮأي )ﻟﺘﻮاﻓﺮ ﲰﺎت اﻟﻨﻈﺮ اﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻠﻲ ﰲ ﻓﻘﻬﻪ( ﻓﺈﻧﻪ أﻋﻤﻞ اﳌﺼﻠﺤﺔ وﻫﻲ ﺗﻘﺎﺑﻞ اﻟﻘﻴﺎس وﻋﺪل ﻋﻦ اﻟﻌﻤﻞ ‘ﺣﺎدﻳﺚ اﻵﺣﺎد ﻛﺎﳊﻨﻔﻴﺔ‬
A quote that supports this idea has been mentioned by Ibn Rajab al-Ḥanbalī [Sharḥ ʿIlal, 1:41]:

However, despite this, there is no doubt that while Imām Mālik may have adopted some of the key features of the Ahl al-Ra’y, he was very well-
respected amongst the Ahl al-Ḥadīth. This is why Ibn Abi’l ʿAwām (d.335 AH) narrates [pg.77] from Nuṣayr ibn Yaḥyā al-Balkhī who said:
"‫ﻟﺮأي؟ ﻗﺎل ﻧﻌﻢ وﻟﻜﻦ رأي أﰊ ﺣﻨﻴﻔﺔ ﺧﻠﺪ اﻟﻜﺘﺐ" ﻓﻘﻠﺖ "ﻓﻘﺪ ﺧﻠّﺪ رأي ﻣﺎﻟﻚ ﺑﻦ أﻧﺲ اﻟﻜﺘﺐ‬o ‫ ﺣﻨﻴﻔﺔ؟" ﻗﺎل "اﻟﺮأي" ﻗﺎل ﻓﻘﻠﺖ ﻟﻪ "ﻓﻬﺬا ﻣﺎﻟﻚ ﺑﻦ أﻧﺲ أﱂ ﻳﺘﻜﻠﻢ‬o‫ﻗﻠﺖ ﻷﲪﺪ ﺑﻦ ﺣﻨﺒﻞ "ﻣﺎ اﻟﺬي ﻧﻘﻤﺘﻢ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻫﺬا اﻟﺮﺟﻞ أﻋﲏ أ‬
"‫ ﻣﻨﻪ" ﻓﻘﻠﺖ ﻟﻪ "ﻓﻬﻼ ﺗﻜﻠﻤﺘﻢ ﰲ ﻫﺬا ﲝﺼﺘﻪ وﻫﺬا ﲝﺼﺘﻪ” ﻗﺎل "ﻓﺴﻜﺖ‬š‫ﻗﺎل "أﺑﻮ ﺣﻨﻴﻔﺔ أﻛﺜﺮ رأ‬
The Ahl al-Ra’y
The Ahl al-Ra’y, on the other hand, had the following qualities:
1) They extrapolated jurisprudential authority to analogical deduction (Qiyās) as they extracted rulings for new Masā’il that had not yet
occurred. This was whilst the Ahl al-Ḥadῑth would prefer to remain silent on these issues.

This supposed ‘eagerness’ from the Ahl al-Ra’y to extrapolate rulings to new Masā’il and the process of polemical juristic debates
(Munāẓarah) that would be used to extrapolate rulings from evidential texts to new Masā’il is what perturbed the Ahl al-Ḥadῑth. Whilst
the Ahl al-Ḥadῑth would engage in the sombre practice of memorising and practising Aḥādῑth in what was known as Mudhākarah, the Ahl
al-Ra’y would be engaged in the loud and confrontational practice of Munāẓarah (polemical juristic debates).

For example, Ibn Abi’l ʿAwām records [pg.108] that once Sufyan ibn Uyaynah visited Imām Abū Ḥanῑfah whilst he was surrounded by his
students, the former asked Imām Abū Ḥanῑfah:
‫ت ِﰲ اﳌَْﺴِﺠِﺪ؟‬ ِ ‫ﺼﻮ‬
ْ ‫أََﻻ ﺗَـ ْﻨـَﻬﺎُﻫْﻢ َﻋْﻦ َرﻓِْﻊ اﻟ ﱠ‬
“Will you not stop them from raising their voices in the Masjid?”
Imām Abū Ḥanῑfah Raḥimahullah (d.150 AH) replied:
‫ََﺬا‬rِ ‫ُْﻢ َﻻ ﻳَـﺘَـَﻔﱠﻘُﻬْﻮَن إِّﻻ‬o‫َدْﻋُﻬْﻢ ﻓَِﺈﱠ‬
“Leave them, for they will not fully understand Fiqh except like this”
At times, the Aṣḥāb al-Ra’y would deduce legal strategems (Ḥiyal) to create ease in a matter. The Ahl al-Ḥadīth, of course, found this to be
repugnant. Melchert writes [pg.9]:
‫‪The Ahl al-Ra’y‬‬
‫‪Another concept that the Ahl al-Ḥadīth found repulsive about these constant extrapolations is how constantly it would lead to the Ahl al-‬‬
‫‪Ra’y changing their position on Masā’il. Melchert writes [pg.12]:‬‬

‫‪However, Ibn Abi’l ʿAwām (d.335 AH) narrates [Faḍā’il Abī Ḥanīfah, pg.85] from Muḥammad ibn Shujāʿ:‬‬
‫ﻗﻠﺖ ﻟﻌﺒﺪ ﷲ ﺑﻦ داود اﳋﺮﻳﱯ "ﺗﺮى أن أﻧﻈﺮ ﰲ ﻗﻮل أﰊ ﺣﻨﻴﻔﺔ؟" ﻗﺎل "ﺷﺪﻳﺪ وﻟﻜﻦ ﺟﺎﻟﺲ أﻫﻞ اﻟﻮرع ﻣﻨﻬﻢ" ﻓﻘﻠﺖ ﻟﻪ "إن ﺑﻌﺾ اﻟﻨﺎس أﺧﱪﱐ أﻧﻪ ﻛﺘﺐ ﻋﻦ أﰊ ﺣﻨﻴﻔﺔ ﻣﺴﺎﺋﻞ ﻛﺜﲑة ﰒ ﻟﻘﻴﻪ ﺑﻌﺪ‬
‫ﻓﺮﺟﻊ ﻋﻦ ﻛﺜﲑ ﻣﻨﻬﺎ" ﻗﺎل "ﻻ ﻳﻬﻮﻟﻨﻚ ﻫﺬا ﻓﺈّن أ‪ Q‬ﺣﻨﻴﻔﺔ ﻛﺎن ﻣﻄﻠﻌﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﻔﻘﻪ وإﳕﺎ ﻳﺮﺟﻊ ﻋﻦ اﻟﻘﻮل ﻣﻦ اﺗﺴﻊ ﻋﻠﻤﻪ”‬
‫‪This not to mention that, at times, Abū Ḥanīfah may have done this to develop the minds of his students. A story clearly demonstrates this‬‬
‫‪and shows how Abū Ḥanīfah wanted his students to develop a deeper understanding of the different ways of interpreting the law. Ibn‬‬
‫‪Abi’l ʿAwām (d.335 AH) narrates [Faḍā’il Abī Ḥanīfah, pg.112] from Imām Muḥammad (d.189 AH) that he said:‬‬
‫ﻛﺎن أﺑﻮ ﺣﻨﻴﻔﺔ ﻗﺪ ﲪﻞ إﱃ ﺑﻐﺪاد ﻓﺎﺟﺘﻤﻊ أﺻﺤﺎﺑﻪ ﲨﻴﻌﺎ وﻓﻴﻬﻢ أﺑﻮ ﻳﻮﺳﻒ وزﻓﺮ وأﺳﺪ ﺑﻦ ﻋﻤﺮو وﻋﺎﻣﺔ اﻟﻔﻘﻬﺎء اﳌﺘﻘﺪﻣﲔ ﻣﻦ أﺻﺤﺎﺑﻪ ﻓﻌﻤﻠﻮا ﻣﺴﺄﻟﺔ أﻳﺪوﻫﺎ ‪T‬ﳊﺠﺎج وﺗﻨﻮﻗﻮا‬
‫ﰲ ﺗﻘﻮﻳﻬﻤﺎ وﻗﺎﻟﻮا ﻧﺴﺄل أ‪ T‬ﺣﻨﻴﻔﺔ أول ﻣﺎ ﻳﻘﺪم ﻓﻠﻤﺎ ﻗﺪم أﺑﻮ ﺣﻨﻴﻔﺔ ﻛﺎن أول ﻣﺴﺄﻟﺔ ﺳﺌﻞ ﻋﻨﻬﺎ ﺗﻠﻚ اﳌﺴﺄﻟﺔ ﻓﺄﺟﺎ_ﻢ ﺑﻐﲑ ﻣﺎ ﻋﻨﺪﻫﻢ ﻓﺼﺎﺣﻮا ﺑﻪ ﻣﻦ ﻧﻮاﺣﻲ اﳊﻠﻘﺔ‪ d :‬أ‪T‬‬
‫ﺣﻨﻴﻔﺔ! ﺑﻠﺪﺗﻚ اﻟﻐﺮﺑﺔ ﻓﻘﺎل ﳍﻢ رﻓﻘﺎ رﻓﻘﺎ! ﻣﺎذا ﺗﻘﻮﻟﻮن؟ ﻗﺎﻟﻮا ﻟﻴﺲ ﻫﻜﺬا اﻟﻘﻮل ﻗﺎل ﲝﺠﺔ أم ﺑﻐﲑ ﺣﺠﺔ؟ ﻗﺎﻟﻮا ﺑﻞ ﲝﺠﺔ ﻗﺎل ﻫﺎﺗﻮا! ﻓﻨﺎﻇﺮﻫﻢ ﻓﻐﻠﺒﻬﻢ ‪T‬ﳊﺠﺎج ﺣﱴ ردﻫﻢ إﱃ‬
‫ﻗﻮﻟﻪ وأذﻋﻨﻮا أن اﳋﻄﺄ ﻣﻨﻬﻢ ﻓﻘﺎل ﳍﻢ أﻋﺮﻓﺘﻢ اﻵن؟ ﻗﺎﻟﻮا ﻧﻌﻢ ﻗﺎل ﻓﻤﺎ ﺗﻘﻮﻟﻮن ﻓﻴﻤﻦ ﻳﺰﻋﻢ أن ﻗﻮﻟﻜﻢ ﻫﻮ اﻟﺼﻮاب وأن ﻫﺬا اﻟﻘﻮل ﺧﻄﺄ؟ ﻗﺎﻟﻮا ﻻ ﻳﻜﻮن ذﻟﻚ ﻗﺪ ﺻﺢ ﻫﺬا‬
‫اﻟﻘﻮل ﻓﻨﺎﻇﻬﺮم ﺣﱴ ردﻫﻢ ﻋﻦ اﻟﻘﻮل ﻓﻘﺎﻟﻮا ‪ d‬أ‪ T‬ﺣﻨﻴﻔﺔ! ﻇﻠﻤﺘﻨﺎ واﻟﺼﻮاب ﻛﺎن ﻣﻌﻨﺎ ﻗﺎل ﻓﻤﺎ ﺗﻘﻮﻟﻮن ﻓﻴﻤﻦ ﻳﺰﻋﻢ أن ﻫﺬا اﻟﻘﻮل ﺧﻄﺄ واﻷول ﺧﻄﺄ واﻟﺼﻮاب ﰲ ﻗﻮل ‪z‬ﻟﺚ؟‬
‫ﻓﻘﺎل ﻫﺬا ﻣﺎ ﻻ ﻳﻜﻮن ﻗﺎل ﻓﺎﺳﺘﻤﻌﻮا واﺧﱰع ﻗﻮﻻ ‪z‬ﻟﺜﺎ و•ﻇﻬﺮم ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﺣﱴ ردﻫﻢ إﻟﻴﻪ ﻓﺄذﻋﻨﻮا وﻗﺎﻟﻮا ‪ d‬أ‪ T‬ﺣﻨﻴﻔﺔ! ﻋﻠﻤﻨﺎ ﻗﺎل اﻟﺼﻮاب ﻫﻮ اﻟﻘﻮل اﻷول اﻟﺬي أﺟﺒﺘﻜﻢ ﺑﻪ ﻟﻌﻠﺔ‬
‫ﻛﺬا وﻛﺬا وﻫﺬﻩ اﳌﺴﺄﻟﺔ ﻻ ﲣﺮج ﻣﻦ ﻫﺬﻩ اﻟﺜﻼﺛﺔ اﻷﳓﺎء وﻟﻜﻞ ﻣﻨﻬﺎ وﺟﻪ ﰲ اﻟﻔﻘﻪ وﻣﺬﻫﺐ وﻫﺬا اﻟﺼﻮاب ﻓﺨﺬوﻩ وارﻓﻀﻮا ﻣﺎ ﺳﻮاﻩ‬
The Ahl al-Ra’y (also referred to as Ahl al-Maʿānī)
2) They assessed the Aḥādῑth with a different set of principles to that of the Ahl al-Ḥadῑth, these principles were - according to the Ahl al-Ḥadῑth - more rationalistic in its nature. The Ahl
al-Ra’y paid a greater focus in their criticism on the texts (Matn) of the Aḥādῑth as their criteria for an authentic Ḥadῑth was different from the Aṣḥāb al-Ḥadῑth and included concepts
such as only authenticating Aḥādῑth that fit with the prevalent logic and coherence of law. This was whilst the Ahl al-Ḥadῑth would not question the authenticity of any Ḥadῑth that had
an authentic chain of narration as they were not interested in forming a prevalent logic of law. Sh. Sohail Ḥanīf writes [pg. 60]:

A prime example showing the difference between the two camps is the following narration in Al-Muwatṭā’ [pg.338 Maknaz]:

In the letter Al-Layth ibn Saʿd () sent to Imām Mālik (d.179 AH), he expressed his anxiety over the Al-Ra’y of Al-Rabīʿah () as recorded in the Tārīkh Ibn Maʿīn [2:317]:
The Ahl al-Ra’y (also referred to as Ahl al-Maʿānī)
The reasoning behind this difference in approach is that the Ahl al-Ra’y viewed legal rulings as part of an interconnected system of law bound together by corresponding legal
meanings. If a narration were to seemingly break this system of law (these legal meanings and general principles), the system of law would be given preference and the narration would
be treated as an anomaly despite its narrators being deemed as reliable. It is also why the Ḥanafīs are the most meticulous and careful when deciding the ʿillah behind a case as the
resultant Qiyās must then fit within the prevalent logic of the law. Sh. Sohail writes [pg. 65]:

Dr. Hassaan Shahawy writes [pg.15]:

These legal meanings/general principles of Sharīʿah/‫ اﻷﻗﻴﺴﺔ اﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ‬are arrived at after performing ‫ اﺳﺘﻘﺮاء‬of the rulings on a particular set of Masā’il. ‫ اﺳﺘﻘﺮاء‬provides definitive knowledge ().
Dr. Anas Sarmīnī writes [pg.60]:
‫واﺗﻔﻖ اﳉﻤﻴﻊ )اﻟﻔﻼﺳﻔﺔ واﻷﺻﻮﻟﻴﻮن( ﻋﻠﻰ أن دﻻﻟﺔ اﻹﺳﺘﻘﺮاء اﻟﺘﺎم ﻗﻄﻌﻴﺔ‬
Due to this difference in approach, the Ahl al-Ḥadīth felt that the Ahl al-Ra’y were callously rejecting authentic Aḥādīth. Al-Awzāʿī (d.157 AH) said [Taʿwīl Mukhtalaf al-Ḥadīth, pg.62]:
‫ﻻ ﻧﻨﻘﻢ ﻋﻠﻰ أﰊ ﺣﻨﻴﻔﺔ أﻧﻪ رأى ﻟﻜﻨﺎ ﻳﺮى وﻟﻜﻦ ﻧﻨﻘﻢ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ أﻧﻪ ﳚﻴﺌﻪ اﳊﺪﻳﺚ ﻋﻦ اﻟﻨﱯ ﻓﻴﺨﺎﻟﻔﻪ إﱃ ﻏﲑﻩ‬
It also created the impression in the minds of later scholars that Abū Ḥanīfah was rejecting Ḥadīth due to ‫اﻟﻘﻴﺎس‬, whereas this was in fact a back-projection considering that Imām al-
Shāfiʿī raḥimahullah (d.204 AH) had restricted ‫ اﻟﻘﻴﺎس‬to ‫اﻟﻘﻴﺎس اﳋﺎص‬.
This was, as pointed out by Dr. Anas Sarmīnī, connected to the idea of how the Ahl al-Ra’y would like to base their methodology upon the highest epistemological foundation. Thus,
these ‫( اﻷﻗﻴﺴﺔ اﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ‬general principles and legal meanings) were considered indisputably established (‫ )ﻗﻄﻌﻲ‬in their minds, this meant that a singular Ḥadīth could not reject it. They were
not simply rejecting the Ḥadīth due to ‫اﻟﻘﻴﺎس اﳋﺎص‬.
The Ahl al-Ra’y (also referred to as Ahl al-Maʿānī)
3) Much like Imām Mālik Raḥimahullah (d.179 AH), the Ahl al-Ra’y also assessed Aḥādῑth based upon the communal practice of the Ṣaḥābāh and Tābi‛ūn in Kūfah.
This was whilst the Ahl al-Ḥadῑth considered authority to lie only in the Aḥādῑth of the Prophet ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam and that communal practice should
play no role in one’s assessment of Aḥādῑth. Ahmed El Shamsy writes [pg.47]:

Again, this idea of communal practice is connected to what Dr. Anas Sarmīnī has discussed about the methodology of the Ahl al-Ra’y preferring to base their
methodology upon the highest epistemological foundation. A communal practice indicated to them that the ruling was indisputably established (‫)ﻗﻄﻌﻲ‬, and
therefore, a singular Ḥadīth could not refute it.
Ibrāhīm al-Nakhaʿī raḥimahullah (d.96 AH) states [Al-Jāmiʿ li Masā’il al-Mudawwanah, 3:117]:
‫ﻢ أﺣﺪ إﻻ ذو رﻳﺒﺔ ﰲ دﻳﻨﻪ‬i ‫ب اﻟﻌﻠﻢ وأﺣﺮص ﺧﻠﻖ ﷲ ﻋﻠﻰ اﺗﺒﺎع رﺳﻮﻟﻪ وﻻ ﻳﻈﻦ ذﻟﻚ‬T‫ﻢ ﻻ ﻳﺘﻬﻤﻮن ﰲ ﺗﺮك اﻟﺴﻨﻦ وﻫﻢ أر‬‰‫ﻟﻮ رأﻳﺖ اﻟﺼﺤﺎﺑﺔ رﺿﻲ ﷲ ﻋﻨﻬﻢ ﻳﺘﻮﺿﺆون إﱃ اﻟﻜﻮﻋﲔ ﻟﺘﻮﺿﺄت ﻛﺬﻟﻚ وأ‡ أﻗﺮؤﻫﺎ إﱃ اﳌﺮﻓﻘﲔ وذﻟﻚ ﻷ‬
Similarly, on the issue of performing 2 rakʿah Ṣalāh before Maghrib, Ibrāhīm al-Nakhaʿī (d.96 AH) said [Ṭabqāt Ibn Saʿd, 6:9]:
‫ﻫﺒﻂ اﻟﻜﻮﻓﺔ ﺛﻼث ﻣﺎﺋﺔ ﻣﻦ أﺻﺤﺎب اﻟﺸﺠﺮة وﺳﺒﻌﻮن ﻣﻦ أﻫﻞ ﺑﺪر ﻻ ﻧﻌﻠﻢ أﺣﺪا ﻣﻨﻬﻢ ﻗﺼﺮ وﻻ ﺻﻠّﻰ اﻟﺮﻛﻌﺘﲔ اﻟﻠﺘﲔ ﻗﺒﻞ اﳌﻐﺮب‬
One can clearly see how Al-Nakhāʿī raḥimahullah gives preference to communal practice and how it gives him epistemological confidence of the ruling being
indisputably established (‫)ﻗﻄﻌﻲ‬.
‫)‪The Ahl al-Ra’y (also referred to as Ahl al-Maʿānī‬‬
‫‪• Dr. Hassaan Shahawy writes [pg.14]:‬‬

‫‪, without, of course, explicitly referring to it as ‘legal meanings’. Instead, he refers to these meanings as‬اﻟﻨﻈﺮ اﳌﻘﺎﺻﺪي وﺿﻮاﺑﻄﻪ ‪• Sh. Sharīf Ḥātim also discusses the idea of legal meanings in his‬‬
‫‪. He states [pg.19]:‬ﻣﺂﺧﺬ اﻟﺸﺮﻳﻌﺔ‬
‫وﻣﺂﺧﺬ أﺑﻮاب اﻟﺘﺸﺮﻳﻊ اﻹﺳﻼﻣﻲ وﻫﻲ اﳌﻨﻄﻠﻘﺎت اﻟﱵ ﺑﲏ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ‪T‬ب ﺗﺸﺮﻳﻌﻲ ﻣﻌﲔ ﻣﺴﺘﻨﺒﻄﺔ ﻣﻦ اﺳﺘﻘﺮاء ﲨﻴﻊ ﺗﻔﺎرﻳﻊ ﻣﺴﺎﺋﻠﻪ وأﺣﻜﺎﻣﻬﺎ اﻟﻔﺮﻋﻴﺔ اﳌﺴﺘﻨﺒﻄﺔ ﻣﻦ أدﻟﺘﻬﺎ اﻟﺘﻔﺼﻴﻠﻴﺔ وﳝﻜﻦ اﻟﺘﻌﺮﻳﻒ ‪T‬ﳌﺄﺧﺬ أﻳﻀﺎ •ن ﻧﻘﻮل ﻫﻮ اﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ اﻟﱵ ﺗﻨﺘﻈﻢ ﻛﻞ ‪T‬ب ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺴﺮ ﺳﺒﺐ اﻧﺘﻈﺎﻣﻬﺎ ﻛﻠﻬﺎ ﰲ ‪T‬ب واﺣﺪ‪...‬وﻟـ)اﳌﺂﺧﺬ( أﻳﻀﺎ اﻟﺘﻘﺎء ‪T‬ﻟﻘﻮاﻋﺪ اﻟﻔﻘﻬﻴﺔ ﻟﻜﻨﻬﺎ ﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﻫﻲ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻫﻮ ﻇﺎﻫﺮ •دﱏ ‪Ÿ‬ﻣﻞ ﺧﺎﺻﺔ ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﻛﺎن ﻏﺮض اﻟﻘﻮاﻋﺪ ﻫﻮ ﺿﺒﻂ اﻟﺘﻔﺎرﻳﻊ ﻻ ﺑﻴﺎن‬ ‫أﺑﻮاب اﻟﺸﺮﻳﻌﺔ ﻓﺘﺤﺘﻮي ﲨﻴﻊ ﻣﺴﺎﺋﻠﻪ ﲢﺖ ﻗﺎﺳﻢ ﻣﺸﱰك واﺣﺪ ﻳﻔ ّ‬
‫ﻣﻔﺘﺎح اﻟﺒﺎب ﻟﺘﻔﺎرﻳﻌﻬﺎ ﻛﺎﳌﺂﺧﺬ‪...‬وﻫﺬﻩ اﳌﺂﺧﺬ ﺗﺘﺠﺎوز اﳌﺼﺎﱀ اﻟﺪﻧﻴﻮﻳﺔ إﱃ ﻣﺎ ﻫﻮ أﻋﻢ ﻣﻨﻬﺎ ﻓﻜﻞ ﻣﺼﻠﺤﺔ دﻧﻴﻮﻳﺔ ﻣﻌﺘﱪة‪ :‬ﻣﺄﺧﺬا ﺷﺮﻋﻲ وﻟﻴﺲ ﻛﻞ ﻣﺄﺧﺬ ﺷﺮﻋﻲ‪ :‬ﻣﺼﻠﺤﺔ دﻧﻴﻮﻳﺔ ﻓﻤﻨﻪ ﻣﺎ ﻫﻮ ﻣﺄﺧﺬ ﺗﻌﺒّﺪي ﻓﻘﻂ ﻛﻘﻮل ﻋﺪد ﻣﻦ اﻟﺴﻠﻒ )ﻣﻨﻬﻢ ﻋﻠﻲ ﺑﻦ أﰊ‬
‫ﻃﺎﻟﺐ واﺑﻦ ﻣﺴﻌﻮد واﺑﻦ ﻋﺒﺎس رﺿﻲ ﷲ ﻋﻨﻬﻢ( "اﻟﻮﺿﻮء ﳑﺎ ﺧﺮج وﻟﻴﺲ ﳑﺎ دﺧﻞ" ﻓﺮﻏﻢ ﻛﻮن اﻟﻮﺿﻮء أﻣﺮا ﺗﻌﺒﺪ¬ ورﻏﻢ أن ﻧﻮاﻗﻀﻪ ﻻ ﻳﻠﺰم أن ﺗﻜﻮن ﻣﺒﻨﻴﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻋﻠﻞ ﻣﺼﻠﺤﻴﺔ ﺑﻞ ﻫﻲ ﺗﻌﺒﺪﻳﺔ ﳏﻀﺔ إﻻ أن ﻫﺆﻻء اﻟﺴﺎدة ﻣﻦ ِﻋْﻠﻴَﺔ ﻓﻘﻬﺎء اﻟﺼﺤﺎﺑﺔ واﻟﺴﻠﻒ‬
‫ﺼﺪوا ﻧﻮاﻗﺾ اﻟﻮﺿﻮء ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼل اﺳﺘﻘﺮاﺋﻬﻢ ﻷﺣﻜﺎم اﻟﺒﺎب واﺳﺘﺨﺮاﺟﻬﻢ ﳌﺄﺧﺬﻩ‬ ‫ﻗﺪ ﻗ ّ‬
‫‪• Whilst evidence of the beginnings of the Ahl al-Ra’y is found right from the time of the Ṣaḥābah, there are significant factors that point to Ibrāhῑm al-Nakhaʽῑ (d.96 AH) as being one of the‬‬
‫‪first scholars to apply some or all of the methodologies of the Ahl al-Ra’y described above. His student Ḥammād ibn Sulaymān (d.120 AH) and his student Abū Ḥanῑfah (d.150 AH) firmly‬‬
‫‪applied all of the methodologies of the Ahl al-Ra’y described above. Accordingly, Kūfah became synonymous with the term Ahl al-Ra’y. Al-Dhahabī narrates [4:522] from Ismāʿīl ibn Abī‬‬
‫‪Khālid:‬‬
‫ﺼﺎِرِﻫﻢ‬ ‫ِ‬ ‫ﺚ ﻓَِﺈَذا ﺟﺎءﻫﻢ َﺷﻲء ﻟَﻴ ِ ِ ِ‬ ‫ﱯ َوإِﺑْـَﺮاِﻫْﻴُﻢ َوأَﺑُﻮ اﻟ ﱡ‬
‫ﻀَﺤﻰ َْﳚﺘَِﻤﻌُْﻮَن ِﰲ اﻟَْﻤْﺴِﺠِﺪ ﻳَـﺘََﺬاَﻛُﺮْوَن اْﳊَِﺪﻳْ َ‬
‫ﺲ ﻓْﻴﻪ ﻋْﻨَﺪُﻫْﻢ ِرَواﻳَﺔٌ َرَﻣْﻮا إِﺑْـَﺮاﻫْﻴَﻢ ِ•َﺑْ َ‬
‫َ َُ ْ ْ ٌ ْ َ‬ ‫ﺸْﻌِ ﱡ‬
‫َﻛﺎَن اﻟ ﱠ‬
‫‪Al-Dhahabī (d.748 AH) records from Al-Aʿmash [4:528]:‬‬
‫ﺚ َﱂْ ﻳَْﺴَﻤْﻌﻪُ ِﻣْﻦ إِﺑْـَﺮاِﻫْﻴﻢ‬
‫ﺖ أَﺣًﺪا أَرﱠد ِﳊِﺪﻳْ ٍ‬
‫َﻣﺎ َرأَﻳْ ُ َ َ َ‬
‫‪Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr (d.463 AH) records from Ḥammād ibn Abī Sulaymān [Jāmīʿ Bayān, 2:96]:‬‬
‫ﻀَﺮ ِﻗﻴَﺎًﺳﺎ ِﻣْﻦ إِﺑْـَﺮاِﻫْﻴﻢ‬
‫ﺖ أَْﺣ َ‬
‫َﻣﺎ َرأَﻳْ ُ‬
‫‪Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr (d.463 AH) records from Ibrāhim al-Nakhaʿī [Jāmīʿ Bayān, 2:112]:‬‬
‫ﺲ َﻋﻠَْﻴِﻪ ِﻣﺎﺋَﺔَ َﺷْﻲٍء‬ ‫ﺸﻲِء‪...‬إِِّﱐ َﻷَْﲰَﻊ اْﳊِﺪﻳ َ ِ‬
‫ﺚ َوأَﻗْﻴ ُ‬‫ْ ُ َْ‬ ‫ﺸﻲِء َوﻧَِﻘْﻴﺲ اﻟ ﱠ ِ‬
‫ﺸْﻲءَ ‪T‬ﻟ ﱠ ْ‬ ‫ُ‬
‫ف اﻟ ﱠ ِ ِ‬
‫ﺸْﻲء ‪T‬ﻟ ﱠ ْ‬ ‫َﻣﺎ ُﻛﱡﻞ َﺷْﻲٍء ﻧُْﺴﺄَُل َﻋْﻨﻪُ َْﳓَﻔﻈُﻪُ َوﻟَِﻜﻨﱠﺎ ﻧَـْﻌِﺮ ُ‬
Factors that led to this difference becoming vitriolic
• This is not to say that only the Ḥanafῑs were considered as the Ahl al-Ra’y. However, the Ḥanafῑs in particular, from the Ahl al-Ra’y were attacked due to their Murjilī belief that
while actions are important, they are not a part of Īmān (belief). This led to an onslaught of partisan attacks from the Ahl al-Ḥadῑth on the Ḥanafῑs. Interestingly, Tsafrir suggest
that the Irjā may have encouraged state sponsor from the Abbasid government. She states [pg.27]:

• Another aspect that led to a greater aversion from the Ahl al-Ḥadīth towards the Ahl al-Ra’y were the geographical locations, whilst Ahl al-Ra’y were not entirely located in ʿIrāq,
a vast majority of them were, thus due to their different approach towards singular Aḥādīth, some scholars of the Ahl al-Ḥadīth felt that the Ahl al-Ra’y did not actually have
many Aḥādīth. This idea, that the Ahl al-Ra’y lacked Aḥādīth whilst the Ahl al-Ḥadīth had many, has become common amongst some orientalists despite it not being true. Ibn ʿAbd
al-Barr (d.463 AH) records [Jāmīʿ 2:33] from ʿUbaydullah ibn ʿAmr:
‫ﺖ ﺟﺌﺘﻚ ﺑﺒﻌﺾ ﺣﺪﻳﺜﻪ أو ﻗﺎل ﺑﺒﻌﺾ ﻋﻠﻤﻪ ﻗﺎل ﻓﺠﻲء ﺑﻪ‬
َ ‫ﻟﻜﻮﻓﺔ ﻣﻮﱃ ﻟﺒﲏ أﺳﺪ ﻳﻌﲏ اﻷﻋﻤﺶ ﻳﺮوي أرﺑﻌﺔ آﻻف ﺣﺪﻳﺚ ﻗﺎل أرﺑﻌﺔ آﻻف ﺣﺪﻳﺚ؟ ﻗﺎل ﻧﻌﻢ إن ﺷﺌ‬T ‫ﻗﺎل ﱄ إﺳﺤﺎق ﺑﻦ راﺷﺪ ﻛﺎن اﻟﺰﻫﺮي إذا ذﻛﺮ أﻫﻞ اﻟﻌﺮاق ﺿّﻌﻒ ﻋﻠﻤﻬﻢ ﻓﻘﻠﺖ ﻟﻪ إّن‬
"‫ﻟﻌﺮاق واﺣﺪا ﻳﻌﻠﻢ ﻫﺬا‬T ‫ﺖ أرى أّن‬
ُ ‫ﻓﺠﺌﺖ ﺑﻪ ﻓﻠّﻤﺎ ﻗﺮأﻩ ﻗﺎل ”وﷲ إّن ﻫﺬا ﻟﻌﻠﻢ وﻣﺎ ﻛﻨ‬
Dr. Anas Sarmīnī writes [pg.22]:
‫ﻓﺎﻷﻗﺮب أن اﻹﺧﺘﻼف ﺑﲔ اﳌﻨﻬﺠﲔ ﻫﻮ ﻣﻈﻬﺮ ﳌﻨﻬﺠﲔ أﺳﺎﺳﻴﲔ ﰲ اﻟﺘﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﻣﻊ اﻟﻨﺼﻮص اﻟﺘﺸﺮﻳﻌﻴﺔ‬...‫واﻟﺘﻘﺴﻴﻢ )ﺑﲔ أﻫﻞ اﻟﺮأي وأﻫﻞ اﳊﺪﻳﺚ( ﲝﺴﺐ اﻧﺘﺸﺎر اﻷﺣﺎدﻳﺚ ﻣﻦ أﺿﻌﻒ اﻟﺘﻘﺎﺳﻴﻢ‬
• However, what made the difference turn vitriolic between the two was the inquisition (fitnah) on the issue of whether the Qur’ān is created or not. In 218 AH, Al-Ma’mūn, the
Abbāsid caliph began the inquisition of the createdness of the Qur’ān. [See: Sh. ʿAbd al-Fattāḥ, ‘Mas’alah Khalq al-Qur’ān’]
Factors that led to this difference becoming vitriolic
• As many will already know, Imām Abū Yūsuf (d.182 AH) served as judge under the Abbasid government from 166 AH until his demise in 182 AH; he served
under three caliphs; Al-Hādī, Al-Mahdī and Hārūn al-Rashīd. He was also the first to have been appointed as Qāḍī al-Quḍāt, whose responsibility was to appoint
other Qāḍīs. He would generally appoint Ḥanafīs.
• Ibn Ḥazm (d.456 AH) states [Jaẓwah al-Muqtabis, pg.567]:
‫ﻓﺈﻧﻪ ﳌﺎ وﱄ ﻗﻀﺎء اﻟﻘﻀﺎة أﺑﻮ ﻳﻮﺳﻒ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ اﻟﻘﻀﺎة ﻣﻦ ﻗﺒﻠﻪ ﻓﻜﺎن ﻻ ﻳﻮﱃ ﻗﻀﺎء اﻟﺒﻼد ﻣﻦ أﻗﺼﻰ اﳌﺸﺮق إﱃ أﻗﺼﻰ أﻋﻤﺎل إﻓﺮﻳﻘﻴﺔ إﻻ أﺻﺎﺣﺒﻪ واﳌﻨﺘﻤﲔ إﱃ ﻣﺬﻫﺒﻪ‬
• This is clearly seen when Imām Abū Yūsuf (d.182 AH) explains to Imām Muḥammad (d.189 AH) as to why he suggested the name of the latter for the post of the
Qāḍī of Raqqah. Ibn Abi’l ʿAwām narrates [pg.356] that Imām Abū Yūsuf (d.182 AH) said:
‫ﺬﻩ اﻟﻨﺎﺣﻴﺔ ﻟﻴﺒﺚ ﷲ ﻋّﺰ وﺟّﻞ ﻋﻠﻤﻨﺎ ﺑﻚ وﲟﺎ ﺑﻌﺪﻫﺎ ﻣﻦ اﻟﺸﺎﻣﺎت‬i ‫ﻟﻜﻮﻓﺔ واﻟﺒﺼﺮة وﲨﻴﻊ اﳌﺸﺮق ﻓﺄﺣﺒﺒﺖ أن ﺗﻜﻮن‬T ‫ﺚ ﻋﻠﻤﻨﺎ ﻫﺬا‬
ّ ‫وأردت ﺑﺬﻟﻚ ﻣﻌﲎ أن ﷲ ﻋﺰ وﺟﻞ ﻗﺪ ﺑ‬
• Many of the judges during the times the inquisition period were Ḥanafῑs, with some adopting the position of the createdness of the Qur’ān, such as the main
judge responsible for promoting the detested position that the Qur’ān is created, Ibn Abῑ Du’ād (d.240 AH), and the notorious student of Abū Yūsuf (d.182 AH),
Bishr al-Marῑsῑ (d.218 AH). This is despite the fact that the view of the Qur’ān being created was not the position of Imām Abū Ḥanῑfah (d.150 AH) or his
students. In fact, Imām Abū Yūsuf (d.182 AH) quickly disowned Bishr al-Marῑsῑ well before the inquisition. Nurit Tsafrir writes [pg.44-45]:
Factors that led to this difference becoming vitriolic
• Shaykh ‘Abdul Rashῑd al-No‘mānῑ writes [Al-Imām Ibn Mājah, pg.93]:
‫ﻟﻨﻴﻞ ﻣﻦ إﻣﺎﻣﻬﻢ وﺳﺎووا ﺑﲔ اﻟﻘﻀﺎة وأﺋﻤﺘﻬﻢ اﻷﺑﺮ‚ء‬€ ‫أﻛﺜﺮ اﻟﻘﻀﺎة اﻟﺬﻳﻦ اﻣﺘﺤﻨﻮا اﻟﺮواة ﰲ ﻋﻬﺪ اﳌﺄﻣﻮن ﰲ ﻣﺴﺄﻟﺔ ﺧﻠﻖ اﻟﻘﺮآن ﻛﺎﻧﻮا ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺬﻫﺐ أﰊ ﺣﻨﻴﻔﺔ رﺿﻲ ﷲ ﻋﻨﻪ ﻓﺎﻧﺘﻘﻢ ﻣﻨﻬﻢ ﻫﺆﻻء اﻟﺮواة‬
“The majority of the judges that tested the narrators (Ahl al-Ḥadῑth) during the time of Al-Ma’mūn in the issue of the createdness of the Qur’ān were upon the
school of thought of Abū Ḥanῑfah, may Allah be pleased with him, thus these narrators (Ahl al-Ḥadῑth) retaliated by attacking their Imām and they made no
distinction between the [guilty] juges and their innocent Imāms”

• Also, considering that Al-Ma’mūn, the chief instigator of the inquisition held the banner of rationalism in creed (Aqῑdah), after the inquisition was ended in
approximately 234 AH by Al-Mutawakkil, the rationalists, whether in creed (Aqῑdah) or law – as practiced by the Ḥanafῑs – were looked at negatively by the Ahl
al-Ḥadῑth.

• It should be noted that not all Ḥanafīs had rationalistic tendencies, such as Muʿallā ibn Manṣūr (d.211 AH), Abū Sulaymān al-Jawzajānī (d. post 200 AH) and
Bishr ibn al-Walīd (). Nurit Tsafrir states [pg.45]:

It was this theological diversity within the Ḥanafī school that allowed the school to supply most of the Qāḍīs of Baghdad for about a century and a half both
when they were supposed to admit the createdness of the Qur’ān and when they were supposed to believe the contrary.
• After the inquisition, many fabrications were made against the Ḥanafῑs to portray them and their founders in a negative light. This difference between the Ahl
al-Ra’y and Ahl al-Ḥadῑth was emphasised by the fact that during the inquisition, the staunchest Ahl al-Ḥadῑth were based in Baghdād – the main threshold of
the Ahl al-Ra’y.
Imām al-Darimῑ (d.255 AH) has narrated from Ibn ‘Awn (d.150 AH) that he said [Dār al-Ta’ṣīl, 1:274]:
‫ﱯ إَِذا َﺟﺎَءﻩُ َﺷْﻲءٌ اﺗﱠـَﻘﻰ َوَﻛﺎَن إِﺑْـَﺮاِﻫْﻴُﻢ ﻳَـُﻘْﻮُل َوﻳَـُﻘْﻮُل َوﻳَـُﻘْﻮُل‬
‫ﺸْﻌِ ﱡ‬
‫َﻛﺎَن اﻟ ﱠ‬
The Role of Imām al-Shāfiʿī
• Imām al-Shafi’i was born in 150 AH in Gazzah
• He became an orphan at a young age and his mother took him to Makah
• In Makah he studied under Muslim ibn Khalid al-Zanji Raḥimahullah. When he reached
approximately 14 years of age, he travelled to Madinah and studied under Imām Malik Raḥimahullah
(d.179 AH)
• Imām al-Bayhaqī (d.458 AH) records [Manāqib, pg.102]:
The Role of Imām al-Shāfiʿī
• He then travelled to Makah and studied under Sufyan ibn Uyaynah. a rebellion against the after spending some time with Sufyan ibn Uyaynah Raḥimahullah,
he travelled to Yemen. However, whilst in Yemen he was falsely accused of joining bbasids, thus he was arrested and brought to Iraq in 184 AH. When brought
into the court, Imām Muḥammad ibn al-Hasan Raḥimahullah, the judge of Raqqa at the time, spoke to Harun al-Rashid to allow a concession for Imām al-Shafi’i
as he was a man of knowledge and had not joined the rebellion.
Ibn al-ʿAmmād al-Ḥanbalī quips after mentioning this story [Shadharāt al-Dhahab, 2:412]:
َ ‫ﺐ َﻋﻠَﻰ ُﻛِّﻞ َﺷﺎِﻓِﻌ ٍّﻲ إَِﱃ ﻳَـْﻮِم اﻟِْﻘﻴَﺎَﻣِﺔ أَْن ﻳَـْﻌِﺮ‬
‫ﻟَْﻤﻐِْﻔَﺮِة‬Tِ ُ‫ف َﻫَﺬا ﻟُِﻤَﺤﱠﻤِﺪ ﺑِْﻦ اْﳊََﺴِﻦ َوﻳَْﺪﻋُْﻮ ﻟَﻪ‬ ِ
ُ ‫ﻓَـﻴَﺠ‬
“It is thus necessary upon every Shafi’i up until the day of judgement that he recognises this [favour] from Muḥammad ibn al-Hasan and that he makes a
supplication of forgiveness for him”
• Imām al-Shāfiʽῑ then began to study under Imām Muḥammad. However, he was not merely a student who would accept everything that his teacher had to
offer, rather, he would debate and challenge Imām Muḥammad on various issues.
• Of course, having recently studied under the late Imām Mālik, Imām al-Shāfiʽῑ was essentially a Mālikῑ debating on behalf of the developing Mālikῑ Madhhab.
Having already studied under Imām Mālik many years prior to Imām al-Shāfiʽῑ, Imām Muḥammad (d.189 AH) was aware of the positions of his former teacher
Imām Mālik and hence was able to respond to the challenges of Imām al-Shāfiʽῑ. Ahmed el-Shamsy writes [pg.46]:

• Imām Muḥammad had written a book in refutation of the positions of his teacher, Imām Mālik, titled Al-Ḥujjah ‘Alā Ahl al-Madῑnah (‫)اﳊﺠﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ أﻫﻞ اﳌﺪﻳﻨﺔ‬.
Accordingly, when Imām al-Shāfiʽῑ (d.204 AH) came to study under Imām Muḥammad, Imām Muḥammad knew that Imām al-Shāfiʽῑ follows the positions of
Imām Mālik, hence he asked him [Ibn Abī Ḥātim, Manāqib al-Shāfiʿī, pg.161]:
‫ َﻋﻠَﻰ أَْﻫِﻞ اﻟَْﻤِﺪﻳﻨَِﺔ ﺗَـْﻨﻈُُﺮ ِﻓﻴِﻪ؟‬Tً‫ﺖ ﻛِﺘَﺎ‬
ُ ‫ﺿْﻌ‬
َ ‫َو‬
“I have written a book on the people of Madῑnah (Al-Ḥujjah), would you like to read it?”
• Imām al-Shāfiʿī would say [Tārīkh Baghdād, 2:567]:
‫س َﻋﻠَﱠﻲ ِﰲ اﻟِْﻔْﻘِﻪ ُﳏَﱠﻤُﺪ ﺑُْﻦ اْﳊََﺴِﻦ‬
ِ ‫أََﻣﱡﻦ اﻟﻨﱠﺎ‬
“The person with the most favour upon me in Fiqh is Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan”
The Role of Imām al-Shāfiʿī
• These interesting series of debates and discussion on Fiqh between Imām Muḥammad and his student Imām al-Shāfiʽῑ led to Imām al-Shāfiʽῑ developing his
ideas further and questioning some of the principles he had understood from Imām Mālik.
• While he did not fully agree with Imām Muḥammad on many of his positions either, the ‘Iraqῑ debates’ had certainly led the 34-year-old Imām al-Shāfiʽῑ to
abandon some of his Mālikῑ learnings and develop his own system of ideas which he would later express in his book Al-Risālah (‫)اﻟﺮﺳﺎﻟﺔ‬.
• Having learnt from the Ahl al-Ḥadīth, represented through Imām Mālik and the Ahl al-Ra’y, represented through Imām Muḥammad, Imām al-Shāfiʿī penned
down in Al-Risālah (‫ )اﻟﺮﺳﺎﻟﺔ‬what he felt to be a more accurate approach and methodology towards understanding and extracting rulings of Sharīʿah. In this
book, he essentially promoted the Qur’ān and mainly the Aḥādīth as primary sources, making the status of Qiyās and communal practice as subsidiary to these
primary sources and giving normativity to the singular Aḥādīth (Khabar Wāḥid). This, Ahmed el-Shamsy refers to as the canonization of Islāmic law. He writes
[pg.49]:

• Whilst communal practice had been promoted by the Ahl al-Ra’y and scholars of Madīnah as epistemologically stronger than singular Ḥadīth, Al-Shāfiʿī
noticed, having travelled to both Madīnah and ʿIrāq, that the two groups still disagreed on Masā’il despite both relying on communal practice. This proved to
Al-Shāfiʿī that communal practice is not epistemologically strong, rather, he felt it was speculative.
• Similarly, Al-Shāfiʿī also ruled out the existence of ‫( اﻷﻗﻴﺴﺔ اﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ‬general principles/habit of the law such as legal meanings) and restricted ‫ ﻗﻴﺎس‬to ‫اﻟﻘﻴﺎس اﳋﺎص‬
• Accordingly, then, Al-Shāfiʿī has been claimed to be the scholar who attempted to combine between some aspects of the Ahl al-Ra’y and Ahl al-Ḥadīth. He had
teachers from the Muʿtazilis including his mentor Muslim ibn Khālid al-Zanjī showing his inclination to the Ahl al-Ra’y. From another perspective, however,
Al-Shāfiʿī’s rejection of ʿAmal Ahl al-Madīnah, seems more in line with Imām al-Shāfiʿī being from the Ahl al-Ḥadīth. However, he engaged in Qiyās, contrary to
the Ahl al-Ḥadīth approach. Similarly, he had no qualms with moving away from the statement of a Ṣaḥābī or Tābiʿī as he felt that authority only lies with the
Prophet, this was contrary to the Ahl al-Ḥadīth. Dr. Anas Sarmīnī writes [pg.31]:
‫ﺎ اﻟﻈﺎﻫﺮﻳﺔ وﻻ اﻟﺸﺎﻓﻌﻴﺔ‬i ‫ر وأﺧﺒﺎر وﱂ ﻳﻠﺘﺰم‬Ç‫ﻟﻨﺼﻮص اﻷﺻﻠﻴﺔ ﻛﺂ‬T ‫ﻳﻠﺘﺰم أﻫﻞ اﳊﺪﻳﺚ واﳊﻨﺎﺑﻠﺔ •ﻗﻮال اﻟﺼﺤﺎﺑﺔ واﻟﺘﺎﺑﻌﲔ وذﻟﻚ ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ أﳊﻘﻮﻫﺎ‬
The Role of Imām al-Shāfiʿī
• As Ḥallaq states [‘Was Al-Shāfiʿī’, pg.593], “He (Al-Shāfiʿī) was indeed difficult to classify”, he then concludes:

• Melchert expands upon Ḥallāq’s comments by stating [Formation of Sunni Schools, pg.70]:

• Dr. Anas Sarmīnī disagrees completely with the concept that Al-Shāfiʿī was neither from the Ahl al-Ra’y or the Ahl al-Ḥadīth, rather, he claims that Imām al-
Shāfiʿī was firmly from the Ahl al-Ḥadīth. He argues that Al-Shāfiʿī disagreed and attempted to disprove the three cornerstones of the Ahl al-Ra’y that they
considered from an epistemological perspective to be indisputably established (‫( ;)اﻟﻘﻄﻌﻴﺎت اﻟﺜﻼﺛﺔ‬1) communal practice (2) general principles/legal meanings (3)
Following the apparent meaning of the Qur’ān and giving preference to it. He states [pg.87-8]:
‫ اﻋﺘﻤﺎدﻩ ﺣﺠﻴﺔ ﺧﱪ اﻵﺣﺎد أﻣﺎم ﺳﺎﺋﺮ اﻷدﻟﺔ وﻋﺪم ز‚دﺗﻪ أي ﺷﺮط ﰲ ﻗﺒﻮل اﳋﱪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺷﺮوط اﶈﺪﺛﲔ اﲡﺎﻫﻪ إﱃ ﺗﻀﻴﻴﻖ اﻟﻘﻴﺎس وﺿﺒﻄﻪ ﺑﻌﺪة ﺿﻮاﺑﻂ ﰒ‬:‫ﺎ اﻵﺗﻴﺔ‬o‫ أ‬Œ‫وﻟﻮ دﻗﻘﻨﺎ ﰲ أﺻﻮﻟﻪ ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﻳﺘﺼﻞ ﺑﺴﻴﺎق اﻟﺪراﺳﺔ ﻟﻮﺟﺪ‬
‫ﺣﺼﺮ ﻣﻔﻬﻮم اﻟﺮأي واﻹﺟﺘﻬﺎد ﺑﻪ ﻓﻘﻂ وﻫﺬﻩ اﻷﺻﻮل ﰲ واﻗﻊ اﻷﻣﺮ ﻣﻦ أﻫﻢ اﳌﺴﺎﺋﻞ اﻟﻔﺎرﻗﺔ ﺑﲔ ﻣﺪرﺳﱵ اﳊﺪﻳﺚ واﻟﺮأي وﳍﺬا ﻓﺈن اﻟﺪراﺳﺔ اﺧﺘﺎرت أن ﺧﻼف اﻟﺸﺎﻓﻌﻲ ﻣﻊ ﻣﺪرﺳﺔ اﳊﺪﻳﺚ ﻛﺎن |زﻻ أي ﲢﺖ‬
‫ﺳﻘﻒ اﳌﺪرﺳﺔ وﺧﻼﻓﻪ ﻣﻊ ﻣﺪرﺳﺔ اﻟﺮأي ﻛﺎن ﻋﺎﻟﻴﺎ ﲟﻌﲎ أﻧﻪ ﺧﺮج ﻋﻦ أﺻﻮﳍﺎ‬
• A classical example of Imām al-Shāfiʿī limiting the role of reason and general principles/legal meanings is his rejection of the subjectivity found within
Istiḥsān
The synthesis of Ahl al-Ra’y and Ahl al-Ḥadīth
• After 300 AH, the differences between the Ahl al-Ra’y and Ahl al-Ḥadῑth decreased as both developed into Madhāhib
(schools of thought) through the efforts of their followers. Accordingly, all the Madhāhib were more involved in their usage
of Ḥadῑth as well as extraction of Masā’il.
At the forefront of this synthesis for the Ḥanafīs was Imām al-Ṭahḥāwī raḥimahullah (d.321 AH). Aḥmed El Shamsy argues
that al-Ṭahḥāwī himself was influenced by Imām al-Shāfiʿī (d.204 AH), his uncle being the famous Al-Muzanī (). He writes
[pg.205-7]:
The synthesis of Ahl al-Ra’y and Ahl al-Ḥadīth
This would explain why Al-Ṭahḥāwī (d.321 AH) appears to defend Ḥanafī positions using the methodology of the Ahl al-
Ḥadīth which has led some scholars such as Sh. Ḥātim to believe the Ḥanafī methodology to be no different from the
methodology of the Ahl al-Ḥadīth.

It is also at this period that Schacht claims that the second explosion of fabricated Aḥādīth occurred. The first having
happened after Imām al-Shāfiʿī’s death.

This coming together of rationalism and traditionalism around 300 AH was significant in how it portrayed Imām al-Shāfiʿī
as we will discuss later.
‫‪The First to Codify Uṣūl al-Fiqh‬‬
‫‪• Before Al-Shāfiʿī, the Fuqahā would extract rulings from the Qur’ān, Sunnah and other sources such as Ijmāʿ and Qiyās‬‬
‫‪without explicitly codifying their methodology through which they were extracting these rulings from these sources.‬‬
‫‪Accordingly, whilst statements indicating to their methodology are found, clear codification of their hermeneutics is not‬‬
‫‪found.‬‬
‫‪), as shown earlier, he‬اﻟﺮﺳﺎﻟﺔ( ‪• It is largely accepted that Imām al-Shāfiʿī was the first to codify Uṣūl al-Fiqh in his Al-Risālah‬‬
‫‪was not the first to ‘invent’ Uṣūl al-Fiqh. Al-Bayhaqī writes [1:368]:‬‬
‫واﻟﺸﺎﻓﻌﻲ أّول ﻣﻦ ﺻﻨّﻒ ﰲ أﺻﻮل اﻟﻔﻘﻪ‬
‫‪Both Dr. Haytham and Dr. Ḥasanāt agree with the statement of Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī (d.606 AH) in Manāqib al-Shāfiʿī‬‬
‫‪[pg.157]:‬‬
‫اﻋﻠﻢ أن ﻧﺴﺒﺔ اﻟﺸﺎﻓﻌﻲ إﱃ ﻋﻠﻢ أﺻﻮل اﻟﻔﻘﻪ ﻛﻨﺴﺒﺔ "أرﺳﻄﺎﻃﺎﻟﻴﺲ" اﳊﻜﻴﻢ إﱃ ﻋﻠﻢ اﳌﻨﻄﻖ وﻛﻨﺴﺒﺔ اﳋﻠﻴﻞ ﺑﻦ أﲪﺪ إﱃ ﻋﻠﻢ اﻟﻌﺮوض وذﻟﻚ ﻷن اﻟﻨﺎس ﻛﺎﻧﻮا ﻗﺒﻞ أرﺳﻄﻮ ﻳﺴﺘﺪﻟﻮن وﻳﻌﱰﺿﻮن‬
‫ﲟﺠﺮد ﻃﺒﺎﻋﻬﻢ اﻟﺴﻠﻴﻤﺔ ﻟﻜﻦ ﻣﺎ ﻛﺎن ﻋﻨﺪﻫﻢ ﻗﺎﻧﻮن ﻣﻠﺨﺺ ﰲ ﻛﻴﻔﻴﺔ ﺗﺮﺗﻴﺐ اﳊﺪود واﻟﱪاﻫﲔ ﻓﻼ ﺟﺮم ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻛﻠﻤﺎ½ﻢ ﻣﺸﻮﺷﺔ ﻣﻀﻄﺮﺑﺔ ﻓﺈن ﳎﺮد اﻟﻄﺒﻊ إذا ﱂ ﻳﺴﺘﻌﻦ ‪Q‬ﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮن اﻟﻜﻠﻲ ﻗﻠﻤﺎ أﻓﻠﺢ ﻓﻠﻤﺎ‬
‫رأى "أرﺳﻄﺎﻃﺎﻟﻴﺲ" ذﻟﻚ اﻋﺘﺰل ﻋﻦ اﻟﻨﺎس ﻣﺪة ﻣﺪﻳﺪة واﺳﺘﺨﺮج ﻋﻠﻢ اﳌﻨﻄﻖ ووﺿﻊ ﻟﻠﺨﻠﻖ ﺑﺴﺒﺒﻪ ﻗﺎﻧﻮ| ﻛﻠﻴﺎ ﻳﺮﺟﻊ إﻟﻴﻪ ﰲ ﻣﻌﺮﻓﺔ ﺗﺮﻛﻴﺐ اﳊﺪود واﻟﱪاﻫﲔ وﻛﺬﻟﻚ اﻟﺸﻌﺮاء ﻛﺎﻧﻮا ﻗﺒﻞ ﺧﻠﻴﻞ ﺑﻦ‬
‫أﲪﺪ ﻳﻨﻈﻤﻮن اﻷﺷﻌﺎر وﻛﺎن اﻋﺘﻤﺎدﻫﻢ ﻋﻠﻰ ﳎﺮد اﻟﻄﺒﻊ ﻓﺎﺳﺘﺨﺮج اﳋﻠﻴﻞ ﺑﻦ أﲪﺪ ﻋﻠﻢ اﻟﻌﺮوض ﻓﻜﺎن ذﻟﻚ ﻗﺎﻧﻮ| ﻛﻠﻴﺎ ﰲ ﻣﻌﺮﻓﺔ ﻣﺼﺎﱀ اﻟﺸﻌﺮ وﻣﻔﺎﺳﺪﻩ ﻓﻜﺬﻟﻚ ﻫﻬﻨﺎ اﻟﻨﺎس ﻛﺎﻧﻮا ﻗﺒﻞ اﻹﻣﺎم‬
‫اﻟﺸﺎﻓﻌﻲ ﻳﺘﻜﻠﻤﻮن ﰲ ﻣﺴﺎﺋﻞ اﻟﻔﻘﻪ وﻳﺴﺘﺪﻟﻮن وﻟﻜﻦ ﻣﺎ ﻛﺎن ﳍﻢ ﻗﺎﻧﻮن ﻛﻠﻲ ﻳﺮﺟﻊ إﻟﻴﻪ ﰲ ﻣﻌﺮﻓﺔ اﻟﺪﻻﺋﻞ اﻟﺸﺮﻋﻴﺔ وﰲ ﻛﻴﻔﻴﺔ ﻣﻌﺎرﺿﺘﻬﺎ وﺗﺮﺟﻴﺤﺎ½ﺎ ﻓﺎﺳﺘﻨﺒﻂ اﻟﺸﺎﻓﻌﻲ ﻋﻠﻢ أﺻﻮل اﻟﻔﻘﻪ ووﺿﻊ ﻟﻠﺨﻠﻖ‬
‫ﻗﺎﻧﻮ| ﻛﻠﻴﺎ ﻳﺮﺟﻊ إﻟﻴﻪ ﰲ ﻣﻌﺮﻓﺔ ﻣﺮاﺗﺐ أدﻟﺔ اﻟﺸﺮع‬
‫‪) in Manāqib al-Shāfiʿī‬اﻟﺮﺳﺎﻟﺔ( ‪• Imām al-Bayhaqī (d.458 AH) records the story behind the writing of Al-Risālah‬‬
‫‪[pg.230]:‬‬
‫أﺧﱪ• أﺑﻮ اﳊﺴﲔ ﻋﻠﻲ ﺑﻦ ﳏﻤﺪ ﺑﻦ ﻋﺒﺪ ﷲ ﺑﻦ ﺑﺸﺮان اﻟﻌﺪل ﺑﺒﻐﺪاد ﻗﺎل أﺧﱪ• أﺑﻮ ﳏﻤﺪ دﻋﺎج ﺑﻦ أﲪﺪ ﺑﻦ دﻋﺎج ﻗﺎل ﲰﻌﺖ ﺟﻌﻔﺮ ﺑﻦ أﲪﺪ اﻟﺴﺎﻣﺎﱐ ﻳﻘﻮل ﲰﻌﺖ ﺟﻌﻔﺮﺑﻦ‬
‫أﺧﻲ أﰊ ﺛﻮر ﻳﻘﻮل ﲰﻌﺖ ﻋﻤﻲ ﻳﻘﻮل "ﻛﺘﺐ ﻋﺒﺪ اﻟﺮﲪﻦ ﺑﻦ ﻣﻬﺪي إﱃ اﻟﺸﺎﻓﻌﻲ وﻫﻮ ﺷﺎب أن ﻳﻀﻊ ﻟﻪ ﻛﺘﺎ‪ T‬ﻓﻴﻪ ﻣﻌﺎﱐ اﻟﻘﺮآن وﳚﻤﻊ ﻗﺒﻮل اﻷﺧﺒﺎر ﻓﻴﻪ وﺣﺠﺔ اﻹﲨﺎع وﺑﻴﺎن‬
‫اﻟﻨﺎﺳﺦ واﳌﻨﺴﻮخ ﻣﻦ اﻟﻘﺮآن واﻟﺴﻨﺔ ﻓﻮﺿﻊ ”ﻛﺘﺎب اﻟﺮﺳﺎﻟﺔ" ﻗﺎل ﻋﺒﺪ اﻟﺮﲪﻦ ﺑﻦ ﻣﻬﺪي "ﻣﺎ أﺻﻠّﻲ ﺻﻼة إﻻ وأدﻋﻮا ﻟﻠﺸﺎﻓﻌﻲ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ"‬
The First to Codify Uṣūl al-Fiqh
• Some scholars have claimed that Imām Abū Yūsuf and Imām Muḥammad was the first to codify Uṣūl al-Fiqh, Ml Abu’l Wafā
al-Afghānī writes [pg.3]:
‫وأﻣﺎ أول ﻣﻦ ﺻﻨّﻒ ﰲ اﻷﺻﻮل – ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﻧﻌﻠﻢ – ﻓﻬﻮ إﻣﺎم اﻷﺋﻤﺔ وﺳﺮاج اﻷﻣﺔ أﺑﻮ ﺣﻨﻴﻔﺔ اﻟﻨﻌﻤﺎن رﺿﻲ ﷲ ﻋﻨﻪ ﺣﻴﺚ ﺑّﲔ ﻃﺮق اﻹﺳﺘﻨﺒﺎط ﰲ "ﻛﺘﺎب اﻟﺮأي" ﻟﻪ وﺗﻼﻩ ﺻﺎﺣﺒﺎﻩ اﻟﻘﺎﺿﻲ اﻹﻣﺎم أﺑﻮ‬
‫ﱐ ﳏﻤﺪ ﺑﻦ اﳊﺴﻦ اﻟﺸﻴﺒﺎﱐ‬Q‫ﻳﻮﺳﻒ ﻳﻌﻘﻮب ﺑﻦ إﺑﺮاﻫﻴﻢ اﻷﻧﺼﺎري واﻹﻣﺎم اﻟﺮ‬
• Sh. Zāhid al-Kawtharī writes [Husn al-Taqāḍī, pg.118]:
‫ﻓﺄوﻟﻴّﺘﻪ )أﺑﻮ ﻳﻮﺳﻒ( ﰲ وﺿﻊ اﻟﻜﺘﺐ ﰲ أﺻﻮل اﻟﻔﻘﻪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺬﻫﺐ أﰊ ﺣﻨﻴﻔﺔ ﻻ ﺗﻨﺎﰲ أّوﻟﻴّﺔ اﻟﺸﺎﻓﻌﻲ ﰲ وﺿﻊ اﻟﻜﺘﺐ ﰲ أﺻﻮل اﻟﺸﺎﻓﻌﻲ ﺑﻞ ﺻﻨﻴﻊ اﻟﺸﺎﻓﻌﻲ ﰲ ﻣﻨﺎﻗﺸﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺗﻘّﺪﻣﻪ ﰲ ﻣﺴﺎﺋﻞ‬
‫ﻟﻨﻈﺮ إﱃ ﻣﺬﻫﺒﻪ ﻓﻘﻂ‬Q ‫اﻷﺻﻮل ﰲ ﻛﺘﺒﻪ ﻣﻦ أﺟﻠﻰ اﻷدﻟﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ أن أّوﻟﻴّﺘﻪ‬
He also states [Bulūg al-Amānī, pg.185]:
‫ﻟﻨﺴﺒﺔ إﱃ ﻣﺬﻫﺒﻪ وﻫﻮ ﻳﻨﺎﻗﺶ اﻟﻄﻮاﺋﻒ ﻗﺒﻠﻪ ﰲ‬Q ‫وﻛﺘﺎب "أﺻﻮل اﻟﻔﻘﻪ" ﻓﺄّوﻟﻴّﺔ "رﺳﺎﻟﺔ اﻟﺸﺎﻓﻌﻲ" ﰲ اﻷﺻﻮل إﳕﺎ ﺗﺼﺢ‬..."‫وﻣﻦ ﲨﻠﺔ ﻣﺎ ﻳﺬﻛﺮﻩ ﳏّﻤﺪ ﺑﻦ إﺳﺤﺎق اﻟﻨﺪﱘ ﻣﻦ ﻣﺆﻟﻔﺎﺗﻪ ﰲ "ﻓﻬﺮﺳﺘﻪ‬
‫اﻷﺻﻮل ﰲ "اﻷم" وﻫﺎﻫﻮ ﶈﻤﺪ ﻛﺘﺎب ﰲ اﻷﺻﻮل وﻷﰊ ﻳﻮﺳﻒ أﻳﻀﺎ ﻛﻤﺎ ذﻛﺮﻩ ﻃﻠﺤﺔ اﳊﺎﻓﻆ‬
• However, the reality is that many scholars have pointed out that ‫ أﺻﻮل‬here, in the writings of Ibn Nadīm and others, does
not mean principles of Fiqh, rather, in the words of Dr. Ḥamzah Bakrī, it is in the meaning of [Bulūg al-Amānī, pg.185]:
‫رؤوس اﳌﺴﺎﺋﻞ اﻟﻔﻘﻬﻴﺔ اﻟﱵ ﺗﺒﺘﲏ ﺳﺎﺋﺮ ﻣﺴﺎﺋﻞ اﻟﺒﺎب ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ وﺗﺘﻔﺮع ﻋﻨﻬﺎ‬
Other scholars and individuals who have mentioned the same include:
Ø Dr. Haytham Khaznah in ‫[ ﺗﻄﻮر اﻟﻔﻜﺮ اﻷﺻﻮﱄ‬pg.29]
Ø Dr. Mehmet Boynukalin in ‫[ ﻣﻘﺪﻣﺔ اﻷﺻﻞ‬pg.37]
Ø George Makdisi in ‘The Juridicial Theology of Al-Shafi’i’ [pg.8] he states that it was not until late 300-400 AH and early
400-500 AH that the term stopped being used as a reference to Fiqh and, rather, a reference to Uṣūl al-Fiqh proper
Ø Wael Hallaq in ‘Was Al-Shafi’i the Master Architect of Islamic Jurisprudence?’ []
The First to Codify Uṣūl al-Fiqh
• Other scholars and individuals who have mentioned the same include:
Ø Dr. Haytham Khaznah in ‫[ ﺗﻄﻮر اﻟﻔﻜﺮ اﻷﺻﻮﱄ‬pg.29]
Ø Dr. Mehmet Boynukalin in ‫[ ﻣﻘﺪﻣﺔ اﻷﺻﻞ‬pg.37]
Ø George Makdisi in ‘The Juridicial Theology of Al-Shafi’i’ [pg.8] he states that it was not until late 300-400 AH and early 400-500 AH that
the term stopped being used as a reference to Fiqh and, rather, a reference to Uṣūl al-Fiqh proper
Ø Wael Hallaq in ‘Was Al-Shafi’i the Master Architect of Islamic Jurisprudence?’ [pg.3]
The two scholars who worked on ‫ﻇﻮرة اﳊﻖ‬Œ, Aurkhan and ʿAbd al-Qādir write [193-4]:
The approach of the Fuqahā (‫ & )ﻃﺮﻳﻘﺔ اﻟﻔﻘﻬﺎء‬the approach of the Mutakallimīn (‫)ﻃﺮﻳﻘﺔ اﳌﺘﻜﻠﻤﲔ‬
The Approach of the Fuqahā
• It is also known as ‫ ﻃﺮﻳﻘﺔ اﳊﻨﻔﻴﺔ‬and was based upon the idea of ‫ﲣﺮﻳﺞ اﻷﺻﻮل ﻣﻦ اﻟﻔﺮوع‬
• Ibn Khaldūn writes [Muqaddimah, 2:201]:

The Approach of the Mutakallimīn

• It is also known as ‫ ﻃﺮﻳﻘﺔ اﳉﻤﻬﻮر‬and ‫ ;ﻃﺮﻳﻘﺔ اﻟﺸﺎﻓﻌﻴﺔ‬either because Al-Shāfiʿī was supposedly the first to write in this approach or because most of the writers
in Uṣūl al-Fiqh who had this approach were Shāfiʿīs
• The Ṭarīqah Mutakallimīn was known for its reliance on ‫ ﻋﻠﻢ اﻟﻜﻼم‬and ‫ﻋﻠﻢ اﳌﻨﻄﻖ‬. ‫ ﻋﻠﻢ اﻟﻜﻼم‬may be referred to as, in the words of Dr. Ḥasanāt [pg.39]:
‫اﻟﻌﻠﻢ اﻟﺬي ﻳﻘﺘﺪر ﻣﻌﻪ ﻋﻠﻰ إﺛﺒﺎت اﻟﻌﻘﺎﺋﺪ اﻟﺪﻳﻨﻴﺔ ﻣﺜﻞ وﺟﻮد ﷲ ¡ﻳﺮاد اﳊﺠﺞ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ورد اﻟﺸﺒﻪ ﻋﻨﻬﺎ ¡ﺳﺘﻌﻤﺎل اﻟﱪاﻫﲔ اﻟﻌﻘﻠﻴﺔ‬
• Dr. Ḥasanāt explains why Uṣūl al-Fiqh uses ‫ ﻋﻠﻢ اﻟﻜﻼم‬by stating [pg.42]:
‫إن ﻋﻠﻢ اﻟﻜﻼم ﻗﺪ أﺛﺒﺖ ﺑﺮاﻋﺔ ﰲ اﻹﺳﺘﺪﻻل واﳊﺠﺎج وﻃﺮﻳﻘﺔ اﻹﺳﺘﺪﻻل واﳊﺠﺎج ﺗﻌﺘﻤﺪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﻘﺪﻣﺎت ﺧﺎﺻﺔ ﺗﺆﺧﺬ ﻣﻦ ﻋﻠﻢ اﻟﻜﻼم إذ ﻋﻠﻢ اﻷﺻﻮل ﻋﻠﻢ اﺳﺘﺪﻻﱄ ﻋﻠﻰ اﻷﺣﻜﺎم ﻓﻼ ﺿﺮر وﻻ ﻋﻴﺐ ﰲ اﻋﺘﻤﺎدﻩ ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﻘﻮاﻋﺪ اﻟﻜﻼﻣﻴﺔ‬
‫ﰲ اﻹﺳﺘﺪﻻل‬
• As for ‫ﻋﻠﻢ اﳌﻨﻄﻖ‬, it is: ‫ﻋﻠﻢ ﻳﻌﺮف ﺑﻪ اﻟﻔﻜﺮ اﻟﺼﺤﻴﺢ ﻣﻦ اﻟﻔﺎﺳﺪ‬, thus explaining why the scholars of Uṣūl from Ṭarīqah al-Mutakallimīn used this field
• The key areas where ʿIlm al-Kalām overlaps with Uṣūl al-Fiqh include:
‫ ﺗﻜﻠﻴﻒ ﻣﺎ ﻻ ﻳﻄﺎق‬,‫ ﺣﻜﻢ اﻷﻓﻌﺎل ﻗﺒﻞ ورود اﻟﺸﺮع‬,‫ اﻟﻌﻘﻞ واﻟﺸﺮع‬,‫اﻟﺘﺤﺴﲔ واﻟﺘﻘﺒﻴﺢ‬
‫)ﻃﺮﻳﻘﺔ اﳌﺘﻜﻠﻤﲔ( ‪The beginnings of the approach of the Mutakallimīn‬‬
‫‪) when he wrote Al-‬ﻃﺮﻳﻘﺔ اﳌﺘﻜﻠﻤﲔ( ‪• Dr. Aḥmad Ḥasanāt holds that Al-Shāfiʿī was the first person to write in this approach‬‬
‫‪) - though he did not name it that, rather, Ibn Khaldūn (d.808 AH) or arguably Al-Ghazālī (d.505 AH) was the‬اﻟﺮﺳﺎﻟﺔ( ‪Risālah‬‬
‫‪first to name this approach Ṭarīqah al-Mutakallimīn - this is whilst the orientalist George Makdisī states that Al-Shāfiʿī did‬‬
‫‪not write according to this approach.‬‬
‫‪, Dr. Aḥmad Ḥasanāt gives three possible ways of defining Ṭarīqah al-‬ﻃﺮﻳﻘﺔ اﳌﺘﻜﻠﻤﲔ ‪The difference lies in how we interpret‬‬
‫]‪Mutakallimīn [pg.48‬‬
‫أوﳍﺎ‪ :‬أ‪t‬ﺎ اﻟﻄﺮﻳﻘﺔ اﻟﱵ ﻳﺬﻛﺮ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ اﳌﺒﺎﺣﺚ اﻟﻜﻼﻣﻴﺔ ﻛﻤﻘﺪﻣﺎت ﻟﻌﻠﻢ اﻷﺻﻮل أو اﻟﱵ ذﻛﺮ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ وﺑﲔ ﺛﻨﺎ}ﻫﺎ ﻣﺒﺎﺣﺚ ﻋﻠﻢ اﻟﻜﻼم‬
‫‪Ð‬ﻧﻴﻬﺎ‪ :‬ﻫﻲ اﻟﻄﺮﻳﻘﺔ اﻟﱵ درج ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﺘﺄﻟﻴﻒ ‪°‬ﺎ ﻋﻠﻤﺎء اﻟﻜﻼم ﻛﺎﳌﻌﺘﺰﻟﺔ واﻷﺷﺎﻋﺮة‬
‫‪Ð‬ﻟﺜﻬﺎ‪ :‬ﻫﻲ اﻟﻄﺮﻳﻘﺔ اﻟﱵ اﺳﺘﺨﺪﻣﺖ اﻟﺘﺠﺮﻳﺪ اﻟﻨﻈﺮي ﻛﻌﻠﻢ اﻟﻜﻼم‬
‫ﻓﻠﻴﺲ اﳌﻘﺼﻮد ﺑﻄﺮﻳﻘﺔ اﳌﺘﻜﻠﻤﲔ ﻫﻮ اﳊﺪﻳﺚ ﻋﻦ ﻣﺴﺎﺋﻞ ﰲ ﻋﻠﻢ اﻟﻜﻼم وﻻ أن ﻣﺆﻟﻔﻴﻬﺎ ﻛﺎﻧﻮا ﻣﻦ ﻋﻠﻤﺎء اﻟﻜﻼم وﻻ أ‪t‬ﻢ اﺳﺘﺨﺪﻣﻮا ﻣﺴﺎﺋﻞ ﻋﻠﻢ اﻟﻜﻼم ﰲ اﻷﺻﻮل )ﻓﻘﺪ اﺳﺘﻌﻤﻠﻪ اﳊﻨﻔﻴﺔ أﻳﻀﺎ(‬
‫وإﳕﺎ اﳌﻘﺼﻮد ﻫﻮ اﻟﻄﺮﻳﻘﺔ اﻟﱵ اﺗﺒﻌﺖ ﰲ ﻓﻬﻢ وﺗﺪوﻳﻦ ﻋﻠﻢ اﻷﺻﻮل اﻟﻘﺎﺋﻢ ﻋﻠﻰ اﻹﲡﺎﻩ اﻟﻨﻈﺮي ﰲ ﺑﻨﺎء اﻷﺻﻮل دون اﻟﻨﻈﺮ إﱃ اﻟﻔﺮوع ﻓﻬﻲ اﻟﻄﺮﻳﻘﺔ اﻟﱵ ﺗﻨﻈﺮ ﰲ اﻷدﻟﺔ ﻣﺒﺎﺷﺮة وﻣﻦ ﰒ ﺗﺴﺘﺨﺮج‬
‫اﻟﻔﺮوع اﻟﱵ ﺗﻨﻄﺒﻖ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ وﺟﺎءت ﺗﺴﻤﻴﺘﻬﺎ ﺑﻄﺮﻳﻘﺔ اﳌﺘﻜﻠﻤﲔ ﻷن ﻫﺬا اﻟﻨﻤﻂ ﻣﻦ اﻟﺘﺄﻟﻴﻒ ﻳﺸﺒﻪ إﱃ ﻛﺒﲑ ﻣﻴﻮل اﳌﺘﻠﻜﻤﲔ ﰲ اﻟﺘﺄﻟﻴﻒ‪...‬ﻓﻄﺮﻳﻘﺔ اﳌﺘﻜﻠﻤﲔ ﺗﻘﻮم ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﻨﻈﺮ ا<ﺮد ﰲ اﻷدﻟﺔ اﻟﻜﻠﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻹﺳﺘﺨﺮاج اﻟﻘﻮاﻋﺪ اﻷﺻﻮﻟﻴﺔ دون اﻟﺘﻘﻴﺪ ﲟﺬﻫﺐ أو رأي ﻣﻌﲔ‬
The beginnings of the approach of the Mutakallimūn (‫)ﻃﺮﻳﻘﺔ اﳌﺘﻜﻠﻤﲔ‬
• Ḥallāq argues that Al-Shāfiʿī’s Al-Risālah (‫ )اﻟﺮﺳﺎﻟﺔ‬has little to nothing to do with Uṣūl al-Fiqh proper. He writes [pg.592]:

• Instead, Hallaq writes:

• Ahmed El Shamsy agrees that Al-Shāfiʿī ensured [pg.3] ‘that the locus of religious authority was transferred from the lived
practice of the Muslim community to a written, clearly demarcated canon of sacred sources consisting of the Quran and the body
of Ḥadīth’
The beginnings of the approach of the Mutakallimūn (‫)ﻃﺮﻳﻘﺔ اﳌﺘﻜﻠﻤﲔ‬
• Another reason Hallaq argues that Al-Risālah (‫ )اﻟﺮﺳﺎﻟﺔ‬has little to nothing to do with Uṣūl al-Fiqh is because, according to
him, the century after Al-Shāfiʿī was devoid of any works on Uṣūl al-Fiqh. Furthermore, no one has been described as an
‘Uṣūlī’ during this stage. He writes [pg.4-5]

• Also, another reason he states is that no commentary or refutation of Al-Risālah (‫ )اﻟﺮﺳﺎﻟﺔ‬was written until a century after
Al-Risālah (‫)اﻟﺮﺳﺎﻟﺔ‬. He writes [pg.5]
The beginnings of the approach of the Mutakallimūn (‫)ﻃﺮﻳﻘﺔ اﳌﺘﻜﻠﻤﲔ‬
• Ḥallāq argues that, as discussed earlier, around 300 AH, the Ahl al-Ḥadīth started to develop a more rational approach and the Ahl al-Ra’y began to equip
themselves with Aḥādīth. Accordingly, as Uṣūl al-Fiqh is a synthesis of human rationalism to the traditional sources, it began to develop and Al-Shāfīʿī began
to be celebrated as the founder considering that he was neither from the Ahl al-Ra’y or the Ahl al-Ḥadīth.
He states: He also writes:

• However, Ahmet Temel totally disagrees as he states that Hallaq’s definition of Uṣūl al-Fiqh is too strict. He concludes that Al-Shāfiʿī did indeed write the first book in Uṣūl. He writes
[The Missing Link in the History of Legal Theory, pg.33]:
The beginnings of the approach of the Mutakallimūn (‫)ﻃﺮﻳﻘﺔ اﳌﺘﻜﻠﻤﲔ‬
• Dr. Anas Sarmīnī also critiques Hallaq as he states [pg.91]:
‫ن ﻗﺪ اﺷﺘﻐﻞ ﰲ ﻧﻘﺪ أﻃﺮوﺣﺔ اﻟﺸﺎﻓﻌﻲ‬Q‫وﺗﺒﺪو أﻳﻀﺎ أدﻟﺔ واﺋﻞ ﺣﻼق اﻷﺧﺮى ﻣﺸﻜﻠﺔ ﻛﺬﻟﻚ ﻓﻬﻞ دﻟﻴﻞ اﻟﺘﺄﺧﺮ اﻟﺰﻣﲏ ﻛﺎف ﻟﺘﺄﺳﻴﺲ ﻣﺼﻞ ﻫﺬﻩ اﻟﻨﺘﻴﺠﺔ اﻟﻜﱪى؟ ﺧﺼﻮﺻﺎ ﻟﻮ ﻋﺮﻓﻨﺎ أن ﻋﻴﺴﻰ ﺑﻦ أ‬
‫ﻛﻤﺎ ﻧﻘﻞ اﳉﺼﺎص وﻋﺪم وﺻﻮل ﻫﺬا اﳊﺠﺎج ﻻ ﻳﻌﲏ ﻋﺪﻣﻪ وﻟﻌﻞ اﻟﺬي ﺟﻌﻞ ﺣﻼق ﳜﺘﺎر ﻫﺬﻩ اﳌﻘﻮﻟﺔ ﻫﻮ اﺷﺘﻐﺎﻟﻪ ﺑﻨﻘﺾ ﺷﺎﺧﺖ ﰲ ﲨﻴﻊ ﻣﺎ ذﻫﺐ إﻟﻴﻪ وﺷﺎﺧﺖ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺣﻼق ﻣﻦ اﻟﻘﺎﺋﻠﲔ ^ﺑﻮة‬
‫ﺳﻴﺴﻪ ﻟﻪ ﻋﻠﻰ أن ﻛﺘﺎب ﺷﺎﺧﺖ أﺻﻮل اﻟﻔﻘﻪ اﶈﻤﺪي إﳕﺎ ﻳﺘﺤﺪث ﻋﻦ اﻟﺸﺎﻓﻌﻲ |ﺻﺮ ﻣﺪرﺳﺔ اﳊﺪﻳﺚ أﻣﺎ ﻣﺪرﺳﺔ اﻟﺮأي وﻫﻲ دﻋﻮى ﻣﻐﺎﻳﺮة ﻟﺘﻠﻚ‬³‫اﻟﺸﺎﻓﻌﻲ ﻷﺻﻮل اﻟﻔﻘﻪ و‬
• Interestingly, Dr Anas Sarmīnī argues that Imām al-Shāfiʿī’s key role was to refute the three ideas that the Ahl al-Ra’y
considered indisputably established (‫ )اﻟﻘﻄﻌﻴﺎت اﻟﺜﻼث‬and to present alternatives to them:
1. Communal practice
2. General principles/legal meanings
3. Apparent meanings of the Qur’ān and the epistemological priority given to the Qur’ān
One of the key aspects that al-Shāfiʿī provided as an alternative is to change the focus of discussion in Uṣūl away from
looking at indisputable establishment (‫ )ﻗﻄﻌﻲ اﻟﺜﺒﻮت‬but rather at indisputable meaning (‫)ﻗﻄﻌﻲ اﻟﺪﻻﻟﺔ‬. Dr. Sarmīnī writes [pg.91]:
‫ﺻﻴﻞ ﻣﺪرﺳﺔ اﳊﺪﻳﺚ ﺗﻐﻠﻴﺐ ﺟﺎﻧﺐ اﻟﺪﻻﻟﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺟﺎﻧﺐ اﻟﺜﺒﻮت ﻓﺎﻟﻨﺺ ﻗﻄﻌﻲ اﻟﺪﻻﻟﺔ ﻇﲏ‬³ ‫وﻧﻘﻞ اﻟﺸﺎﻓﻌﻲ ﺟﺎﻧﺐ اﻟﻨﻈﺮ واﻟﱰﻛﻴﺰ ﰲ اﻟﻘﻄﻌﻴﺔ واﻟﻈﻨﻴﺔ ﻣﻦ ﻗﺴﻢ اﻟﺜﺒﻮت إﱃ ﻗﺴﻢ اﻟﺪﻻﻟﺔ…وﻳﻐﻠﺐ ﰲ‬
‫اﻟﺜﺒﻮت ﻳﺮﺟﺢ ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﻨﺺ ﻇﲏ اﻟﺪﻻﻟﺔ ﻗﻄﻌﻲ اﻟﺜﺒﻮت‬
This, as we know, is totally different to the Ahl al-Ra’y. Sh. Sohail Hanif writes [pg.36]:
The beginnings of the approach of the Mutakallimūn (‫)ﻃﺮﻳﻘﺔ اﳌﺘﻜﻠﻤﲔ‬
• Ahmed El Shamsy argues - without claiming like Hallaq has that Al-Shāfiʿī’s Al-Risālah (‫ )اﻟﺮﺳﺎﻟﺔ‬had nothing to do with Uṣūl al-Fiqh - that in Al-Risālah (‫)اﻟﺮﺳﺎﻟﺔ‬, Al-
Shāfiʿī gave the Ahl al-Ḥadīth an option that involved compromising on allowing some form of rationalism into their methodology but such that it would not
deviate from the Aḥādīth. This legal approach in interpretation (hermeneutic) would allow them to take on the Ahl al-Ra’y and challenge their system whilst
maintaining the Aḥādīth as the focus of their approach. He writes [pg.195-7]:

• This would also explain why we use the Shāfiʿī approach in Muṣṭalaḥ al-Ḥadīth in general, as his approach was more in line with giving authority to the Ḥadīth
through the Isnād system which the Ahl al-Ḥadīth preferred. Whilst the other approaches preferred by the Ahl al-Ra’y involved looking at the text of the
narration and was therefore limited to Fiqh, as it involves ‘action’. Dr. Anas Sarmīnī alludes to this as he states [pg.42]:
‫ﺎ ﻣﻦ ﻣﺸﺎﳜﻬﻢ ﻣﺮﻓﻘﺔ‬t‫ﳌﺘﻮن وﻳﺮوو‬Q ‫ﻢ ﻳﻘﺒﻠﻮن اﻷﺳﺎﻧﻴﺪ اﳌﻨﻘﻄﻌﺔ واﳌﺮﺳﻠﺔ ﻓﻮاﻗﻊ اﻟﺮواﻳﺔ ﻋﻨﺪﻫﻢ ﻛﺎن ﻫﻜﺬا أوﻻ ﻓﺠﻤﻴﻌﻬﻢ ﻳﻬﺘﻤﻮن‬t^ ‫وﻫﺬﻩ ﻣﻼﺣﻈﺔ ﻻ ﺑﺪ ﻣﻦ اﻋﺘﺒﺎرﻫﺎ ﻋﻨﺪ ﻣﻨﺎﻗﺸﺔ ﻣﺪرﺳﺔ اﻟﺮأي‬
‫ﻟﻌﻤﻞ‬Q ‫ﻧﻴﺎ أّن ﻫﺬا اﻹﺳﺘﺜﻨﺎء ﳐﺘﺺ ﲟﺴﺎﺋﻞ اﻟﻔﻘﻪ اﻟﻌﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﻓﻼ ﳝﻜﻦ ﻧﻘﻠﻪ إﱃ ﳎﺎﻻت اﻟﻌﻠﻮم اﻷﺧﺮى ﻛﺎﻟﺴﲑ واﻟﺘﺎرﻳﺦ واﻟﻌﻘﺎﺋﺪ ﳑﺎ ﻻ ﻳﺘﺼﻞ‬Ð‫ﺎ و‬° ‫ﻟﻔﺘﺎوى واﻷﻗﻀﻴﺔ اﻟﱵ ﺻﺮﺣﻮا‬Q
The beginnings of the approach of the Mutakallimūn (‫)ﻃﺮﻳﻘﺔ اﳌﺘﻜﻠﻤﲔ‬
• After Al-Shāfiʿī’s Al-Risālah (‫)اﻟﺮﺳﺎﻟﺔ‬, small books are written on certain topics of Uṣūl al-Fiqh, such as proofs for
Qiyās in refutation to Al-Shāfiʿī’s student, Dāwūd al-Ẓāhirī, however, nothing significant is found in this
approach (‫ )ﻃﺮﻳﻘﺔ اﳌﺘﻜﻠﻤﲔ‬until the Muʿtazilī scholars engaged in the field and one Ashʿarī scholar (as mentioned
earlier, this dearth of books is what made Ḥallāq question whether Al-Shāfiʿī’s book can really be considered a
book on ‘Uṣūl al-Fiqh’)
• The different schools of thought in Kalām began to appear mid 200 AH – 300 AH
• The leading two scholars who really developed Uṣūl al-Fiqh in this approach and made it replete with ‫ﻋﻠﻢ اﳌﻨﻄﻖ‬
and ‫ ﻋﻠﻢ اﻟﻜﻼم‬were two contemporary scholars from two different Madrasahs within this approach:
1. Qāḍī Abū Bakar al-Bāqillānī (d.403 AH) from the Ashʿarī Madrasah, who wrote ‫اﻟﺘﻘﺮﻳﺐ واﻹرﺷﺎد‬
2. Qāḍī ʿAbd al-Jabbār (d.415 AH) from the Muʿtazilī Madrasah
Makdisī attributes three factors that led to more Mutakallimūn entering the field of Uṣūl al-Fiqh:

He labels them as: (1) The inquisition (2) The defection of Abu’l Ḥasan al-Ashʿarī (3) The Qādirī creed
The beginnings of the approach of the Mutakallimūn (‫)ﻃﺮﻳﻘﺔ اﳌﺘﻜﻠﻤﲔ‬
• Dr. Hasanat writes [pg.145]:
‫ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼل اﳌﺆﻟﻔﺎت اﻷﺻﻮﻟﻴﺔ اﻟﱵ وﺿﻌﻬﺎ اﳌﻌﺘﺰﻟﺔ ﰲ أﺻﻮل اﻟﻔﻘﻪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻃﺮﻳﻘﺔ اﳌﺘﻜﻠﻤﲔ ﻳﻜﺎد ﻳﻜﻮن ﻣﻦ اﳌﺘﻔﻖ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﺑﲔ اﻟﻌﻠﻤﺎء أن اﳌﻌﺘﺰﻟﺔ ﻫﻢ اﳌﺆﺳﺴﻮن اﳊﻘﻴﻘﻮن ﻟﻌﻠﻢ اﻟﻜﻼم اﻹﺳﻼﻣﻲ وﻫﻢ ﻣﻦ أواﺋﻞ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺗﻜﻠﻢ ﰲ ﻣﺴﺎﺋﻞ ﻋﻠﻢ اﻟﻜﻼم وﺑﻨﻮﻫﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﻌﻘﻞ وﱂ ﻳﻘﺘﺼﺮ دورﻫﻢ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻋﻼم اﻟﻜﻼم ﻓﺤﺴﺐ ﺑﻞ ﳍﻢ ﻣﺸﺎرﻛﺎت واﺳﻌﺔ ﰲ ﺷﱴ اﻟﻌﻠﻮم وﻋﻠﻰ رأﺳﻬﺎ ﻋﻠﻢ أﺻﻮل اﻟﻔﻘﻪ وﻳﻌﺪ اﳌﻌﺘﺰﻟﺔ ﻣﻦ أواﺋﻞ ﻣﻦ ﺗﻜﻠﻢ ﰲ ﻋﻠﻢ‬
‫اﻷﺻﻮل ﺑﻨﺎء ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﻄﺮﻳﻘﺔ اﻟﻜﻼﻣﻴﺔ اﳌﻨﻄﻘﻴﺔ واﳉﺪﻟﻴﺔ ﻓﺒﻌﺪ أن وﺿﻊ اﻟﺸﺎﻓﻌﻲ رﺳﺎﻟﺘﻪ ﰲ أﺻﻮل اﻟﻔﻘﻪ وﺟﺎء اﳌﻌﺘﺰﻟﺔ وأﺧﺬوا اﻟﺮﺳﺎﻟﺔ وﺑﻨﻮا أﺻﻮﻻ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﻨﻮاﳍﺎ‬
• In fact, Dr. Hasanat writes [pg.146, 166, 171]:
‫وﻗﺪ أﻟّﻒ اﻟﻘﺎﺿﻲ ﻋﺒﺪ اﳉﺒﺎر ﰲ أﺻﻮل اﻟﻔﻘﻪ ﻋﺪة ﻣﺆﻟﻔﺎت وﺗﻨﺎول أﺻﻮل اﻟﻔﻘﻪ ﰲ ﻣﺆﻟﻔﺎت أﺧﺮى ﻏﲑ اﳌﺆﻟﻔﺎت اﻷﺻﻮﻟﻴﺔ وﻗﺪ ﺷﻬﺪ ﻟﻠﻘﺎﺿﻲ ﻋﺒﺪ اﳉﺒﺎر اﻟﻘﺎﺻﻲ واﻟﺪاﱐ وﻋﺪﻩ اﻟﻌﻠﻤﺎء ﺿﻤﻦ أﻫﻢ أرﻛﺎن‬
‫واﻟﺒﺎﻗﻼﱐ‬...‫وﻟﺬا ﻓﺈﱐ أزﻋﻢ أن اﻟﺒﺎﻗﻼﱐ ﻫﻮ اﳌﺆﺳﺲ اﳊﻘﻴﻘﻲ ﻟﻌﻠﻢ اﻟﻜﻼم اﻟﺴﲏ‬...‫اﳌﺘﻜﻠﻤﲔ ﺑﻞ ﻳﻌﺪ ﻫﻮ واﻟﺒﺎﻗﻼﱐ اﻵﰐ ذﻛﺮﻩ رﻛﲏ ﻃﺮﻳﻘﺔ اﳌﺘﻜﻠﻤﲔ اﻟﱵ ﺑﲏ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﻤﺎ ﻃﺮﻳﻘﺔ اﳌﺘﻜﻠﻤﲔ ﺑﻌﺪ اﻹﻣﺎم اﻟﺸﺎﻓﻌﻲ‬
‫ﻓﻴﻤﺎ أﻋﻠﻢ وﻣﺎ وﺻﻞ إﱄ ﻫﻮ أّول ﻣﻦ ﻋّﺮف اﻟﻔﻘﻪ وأﺻﻮﻟﻪ ﺑﺘﻌﺮﻳﻔﺎت ﺣﺪﻳﺔ ﺟﺎﻣﻌﺔ ﻣﺎﻧﻌﺔ وﻗﺪ اﻋﺘﻤﺪ ﻛﻞ ﻣﻦ ﻋّﺮف اﻟﻔﻘﻪ وأﺻﻮل اﻟﻔﻘﻪ ﺑﻌﺪ اﻟﺒﺎﻗﻼﱐ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺗﻌﺮﻳﻒ اﻟﺒﺎﻗﻼﱐ وﻣﻨﻪ اﻧﻄﻠﻖ‬
• Whenever Al-Juwaynī (d.478 AH) mentions ‫ اﻟﻘﺎﺿﻲ‬in general, then it is a reference to Qāḍi Abū Bakar al-Bāqillānī (d.403 AH), most
who came after Al-Juwaynī followed him in this regard
• Dr. Hasanat also mentions [pg.174] how the earliest book written in the Ḥanbalī school of thought, ‫ اﻟﻌﺪة ﰲ أﺻﻮل اﻟﻔﻘﻪ‬by Qāḍī Abū Yaʿlā
al-Farrā was influenced by the Ṭarīqah al-Mutakallimīn, such that the author uses all the definitions mentions by Al-Bāqillānī
without explicitly quoting him
• However, Dr. Hasanat admits [pg.97] that the Ḥanbalī books on Uṣūl al-Fiqh were written later than some of the other books
written by the Shāfiʿī’s and Mālikīs, this is perhaps due to their aversion to ʿIlm al-Kalām. However, the author then holds the
opinion that the Ḥanabilah did later write according to this methodology, in fact, he mentions [pg.125] that one of the most
famous books in Ḥanbalī Uṣūl written by Ibn Qudāmah titled ‫ روﺿﺔ اﻟﻨﺎﻇﺮ‬was in fact a summary of ‫ اﳌﺴﺘﺼﻔﻰ‬as mentioned by Al-Ṭūfī in
his commentary on the book, even though Ibn Qudāmah himself does not mention this.
• It is important to appreciate that considering that the Ṭarīqah al-Mutakallimīn is a methodology of extracting Uṣūl and then to
build Furūʿ upon them, this does not mean that their Uṣūl or Aqīdah would be the same. Dr. Hasanat writes [pg.129]:
‫ﻓﻼ ﻳﺸﱰط ﰲ اﻟﺘﺄﻟﻴﻒ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻃﺮﻳﻘﺔ اﳌﺘﻜﻠﻤﲔ أن ﻳﻜﻮن اﳌﺆﻟﻒ ﺻﺎﺣﺐ ﻋﻘﻴﺪة ﻋﻠﻰ ﻃﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﻣﻌﻴﻨﺔ ﻋﻨﺪ ﻋﻠﻤﺎء اﻟﻜﻼم ﺑﻞ ﻳﻜﻮن ﻓﻴﻬﺎ أﺻﺤﺎب ﻣﻌﺘﻘﺪات ﻣﺘﻐﺎﻳﺮة ﻛﺎﳌﻌﺘﺰﻟﺔ واﻷﺷﺎﻋﺮة وﳐﺎﻟﻔﻴﻬﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺑﻌﺾ اﳊﻨﺎﺑﻠﺔ‬
The beginnings of the approach of the Mutakallimūn (‫)ﻃﺮﻳﻘﺔ اﳌﺘﻜﻠﻤﲔ‬
The Key Features of the Ṭarīqah al-Mutakallimīn
• A close attention to the Arabic language itself and the inferences (‫ )دﻻﻻت‬of Arabic words
• Extracting a principle using the evidences as well as ‫اﻟﻨﻈﺮ‬
• Not becoming partisan to one specific school of thought
• Attempting to remain as objective as possible
• Ensuring that their extracted principles are correct by discussing all the objections against them and responding to them
• Whenever their principle disagrees with another scholar’s extracted principle, they will clearly try to show where the
difference of opinion lies
• They will pay special attention to making sure their definitions of any term is precise
• Not mentioning many Furūʿ, if they do, then it is in order to present an example of where the principle works, it is not as
an evidence of the principle itself. Al-Juwaynī writes [Al-Burhān 2:892]:
‫ﻋﻠﻰ أ| ﰲ ﻣﺴﺎﻟﻚ اﻷﺻﻮل ﻻ ﻧﻠﺘﻔﺖ إﱃ ﻣﺴﺎﺋﻞ اﻟﻔﻘﻪ ﻓﺎﻟﻔﺮع ﻳﺼﺤﺢ ﻋﻠﻰ اﻷﺻﻞ ﻻ ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﻔﺮع‬

• They will usually begin with an introduction on defining knowledge, intellect and its types, sometimes referred to as ‫اﳌﻘﺪﻣﺔ‬
‫ا ﳌ ﻨ ﻄﻘ ﻴ ﺔ‬
The approach of the Mutakallimūn (‫ )ﻃﺮﻳﻘﺔ اﳌﺘﻜﻠﻤﲔ‬develops further
The four main books written in the approach of the Mutakallimūn are:
1) Al-ʿUmad (‫ )اﻟﻌﻤﺪ‬By Qāḍī ʿAbd al-Jabbār al-Muʿtazilī (d.415 AH) – he was the student of Abū ʿAbdillah al-Ḥusayn ibn ʿAlī al-Baṣrī (d.369 AH), who was the student of Abu’l
Ḥasan al-Karkhī (d.340 AH)
In this book, the author ensured to present the views of the four leading scholars of the Muʿtazilah; 1. Abū ʿAlī al-Jubbā’ī (d.304 AH), 2. his son Abū Hāshim al-Jubbā’ī
(d.321 AH), 3. Abu’l Ḥasan al-Karkhī (d.340 AH), 4. his student Abū ʿAbdillah al-Baṣrī (d.369 AH).
This book has not been found, however, his student Abu’l Ḥusayn al-Baṣrī (d.436 AH) wrote a commentary upon it, a portion of which is found.
2) Al-Muʿtamad (‫ )اﳌﻌﺘﻤﺪ‬By Abu’l Ḥusayn al-Baṣrī (d.436 AH) (student of Qāḍī ʿAbd al-Jabbār)
Dr. Hasanat writes [pg.153]:
‫ﰐ ﻣﺆﻟﻔﺎﺗﻪ ﰲ أﺻﻮل اﻟﻔﻘﻪ ﰲ اﻟﺪرﺟﺔ اﻷوﱃ ﻋﻨﺪ اﳌﻌﺘﺰﻟﺔ‬P‫ﻳﻌﺪ أﺑﻮ اﳊﺴﲔ اﻟﺒﺼﺮي ﻣﻦ أﺷﻬﺮ ﻋﻠﻤﺎء اﳌﻌﺘﺰﻟﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ اﻹﻃﻼق وﻫﻮ أﻛﺜﺮ ﻣﻦ ﻧﺼﺮ آراء اﳌﻌﺘﺰﻟﺔ ﺳﻮاء ﻣﻨﻬﺎ اﻟﻌﻘﺪﻳﺔ أو اﻷﺻﻮﻟﻴﺔ و‬
Al-Isnawī (d.772 AH) states [Nihāyah al-Sūl 1:6] that Fakhr al-Rāzī had memorised this book by heart.
3) Al-Burhān (‫ )اﻟﱪﻫﺎن‬by Imām al-Ḥaramayn al-Juwaynī (d.478 AH)
Dr. Hasanat mentions [pg.171]: ‫ﻟﺒﺎﻗﻼﱐ‬g g‫اﻹﻣﺎم اﳉﻮﻳﲏ وﻫﻮ أﻛﺜﺮ ﻣﻦ اﻫﺘﻢ `راء اﻟﺒﺎﻗﻼﱐ وﻛﺎن ﻣﻦ إﻛﺜﺮ اﻟﻨّﺎس إﻋﺠﺎ‬
This book also preserved for us the views of the early Ashāʿirah such as Abu’l Ḥasan al-Ashʿarī (), Abū Bakar ibn Fūrak () and Abū Isḥāq al-Isfirāyīnī ().
He is also considered one of the earliest to write upon the Maqāṣid al-Sharīʿah. Dr. Hasanat writes [pg.179]:
‫اﳉﻮﻳﲏ أول ﻣﻦ ﺗﻜﻠﻢ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﻘﺎﺻﺪ اﻟﺸﺮﻳﻌﺔ ﺣﻴﺚ ﱂ أﺟﺪ ﻟﻠﻤﻘﺎﺻﺪ ذﻛﺮ ﻋﻨﺪ أﺣﺪ ﻓﻴﻤﺎ اﻃﻠﻌﺖ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻗﺒﻞ اﳉﻮﻳﲏ‬
4) Al-Mustaṣfā (‫ )اﳌﺴﺘﺼﻔﻰ‬by Imām al-Ghazālī (d.505 AH) (student of Imām al-Ḥaramayn)
This is amongst the final books that the Imām wrote, having written ‫ اﳌﻨﺨﻮل‬when he was young in which he summarised the opinions of his teacher. In this book, he is
not afraid to disagree with his teacher.
Fakhr al-Rāzī and Sayf al-Āmidī had memorised this book by heart.

Ibn Khaldūn (d.808 AH) writes [2:201]:

‫وﻛﺎن ﻣﻦ أﺣﺴﻦ ﻣﺎ ﻛﺘﺐ ﻓﻴﻪ اﳌﺘﻜﻠﻤﻮن ﻛﺘﺎب "اﻟﱪﻫﺎن" ﻹﻣﺎم اﳊﺮﻣﲔ و "اﳌﺴﺘﺼﻄﻔﻰ" ﻟﻠﻐﺰاﱄ وﳘﺎ ﻣﻦ اﻷﺷﻌﺮﻳﺔ وﻛﺘﺎب "اﻟﻌﻤﺪ ﻟﻌﺒﺪ اﳉﺒﺎر )وﺷﺮﺣﻪ( "اﳌﻌﺘﻤﺪ" ﻷﰊ اﳊﺴﲔ اﻟﺒﺼﺮي وﳘﺎ ﻣﻦ اﳌﻌﺘﺰﻟﺔ وﻛﺎﻧﺖ اﻷرﺑﻌﺔ ﻗﻮاﻋﺪ ﻫﺬا اﻟﻔﻦ وأرﻛﺎﻧﻪ‬

Despite this, not many Shāfiʿī scholars wrote commentaries upon Al-Burhān or Al-Mustaṣfā alone.
‫‪The roles of Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī (d.606 AH) and Sayf al-Dīn al-Āmidī (d.631 AH) in the‬‬
‫)ﻃﺮﻳﻘﺔ اﳌﺘﻜﻠﻤﲔ( ‪Ṭarīqah al-Mutakallimūn‬‬
‫‪• Both Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī (d.606 AH) and Sayf al-Dīn al-Āmidī (d.631 AH) summarised the four main books (with additions) of the Ṭarīqah‬‬
‫)ﻃﺮﻳﻘﺔ اﳌﺘﻜﻠﻤﲔ( ‪al-Mutakallimūn‬‬
‫اﶈﺼﻮل ﰲ ﻋﻠﻢ اﻷﺻﻮل ‪• Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī (d.606 AH)’s book was titled‬‬
‫‪Dr. Hasanat states [pg.210]:‬‬
‫ﻫﻮ ﻣﻦ أﻫﻢ اﻟﻜﺘﺐ اﻟﱵ ﺣﻮت ﻋﻠﻰ ﺣﺪ ﺳﻮاء آراء اﳌﻌﺘﺰﻟﺔ واﻷﺷﺎﻋﺮة اﻷﺻﻮﻟﻴﺔ‬
‫‪Several important summaries were written of this including:‬‬
‫)‪ by Tāj al-Dīn al-Armawī (d.653 AH‬اﳊﺎﺻﻞ )‪1‬‬
‫)‪ by Sirāj al-Dīn al-Armawī (d.682 AH‬اﻟﺘﺤﺼﻴﻞ )‪2‬‬
‫اﻟﺬﺧﲑة ‪ by Al-Qarāfī al-Mālikī (d.684 AH) – this became his introduction to his book in Fiqh titled‬ﺗﻨﻘﻴﺢ اﻟﻔﺼﻮل )‪3‬‬
‫اﻹﺣﻜﺎم ﰲ أﺻﻮل اﻷﺣﻜﺎم ‪• Sayf al-Dīn al-Āmidī (d.631 AH)’s book was titled‬‬
‫‪• The difference in approach between this book and Fakhr al-Rāzī’s book has been explained by Dr. Hasanat [pg.221]:‬‬
‫ﻳﻌﺪ ﻛﺘﺎب "اﻹﺣﻜﺎم" ﻣﻦ أﻛﺜﺮ اﻟﻜﺘﺐ اﻷﺻﻮﻟﻴﺔ ﲢﻘﻴﻘﺎ ﻟﻠﻤﺴﺎﺋﻞ اﻷﺻﻮﻟﻴﺔ واﻟﺘﻔﺮﻳﻊ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ وﻫﻲ اﳋﺎﺻﺔ اﻟﱵ ﲤﻴّﺰ ‪r‬ﺎ ﻋﻦ اﻟﺮازي وﻋﻦ ﻛﺘﺎب ”اﶈﺼﻮل" ﻓﻔﻲ ﺣﲔ ﻛﺎن اﻫﺘﻤﺎم اﻟﺮازي ﻣﻨﺼﺒﺎ إﱃ ذﻛﺮ اﻷدﻟﺔ واﳊﺠﺎج ﰲ‬
‫اﻟﺪرﺟﺔ اﻷوﱃ وﻗﺪ أﻛﺜﺮ ﻣﻦ اﻷدﻟﺔ ﰲ ﻛﺘﺎﺑﻪ وﻗﺪ أﻛﺜﺮ ﻣﻦ اﻷدﻟﺔ ﰲ ﻛﺘﺎﺑﻪ ﺣﱴ أﻃﻨﺐ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ إﱃ ﺣﺪ ﻛﺒﲑ ﻛﺎن اﻵﻣﺪي أﻛﺜﺮ ﲢﻘﻴﻘﺎ ﻟﻠﻤﺴﺎﺋﻞ وﻗﺪ ﻗﻠﻞ ﻣﻦ اﻷدﻟﺔ واﻹﺣﺘﺠﺎج ﻟﻠﻤﺴﺎﺋﻞ اﻷﺻﻮﻟﻴﺔ‪...‬وﻟﻌﻞ ﻫﺬا ﻫﻮ اﻟﺴﺒﺐ اﻟﺬي‬
‫ﻣﻦ أﺟﻠﻪ أﻃﻠﻖ اﻵﻣﺪي ﻋﻠﻰ ﻛﺘﺎﺑﻪ اﺳﻢ "اﻹﺣﻜﺎم" ﻷﻧﻪ أﺣﻜﻢ ﺑﻪ اﳌﺴﺎﺋﻞ اﻷﺻﻮﻟﻴﺔ وﺣﻘﻘﻬﺎ وﻓﺼﻠﻬﺎ ﺗﻔﺼﻴﻼ ﳏﻜﻤﺎ وﻗﺪ اﺳﺘﺨﺪم اﻵﻣﺪي اﻷﺳﺎﻟﻴﺐ اﳌﻨﻄﻘﻴﺔ واﻟﻜﻼﻣﻴﺔ ﰲ ﲢﻘﻴﻘﻪ ﻟﻠﻤﺴﺎﺋﻞ اﻷﺻﻮﻟﻴﺔ ﻏﲑ أﻧﻪ ﳜﺘﻠﻒ ﻋﻦ‬
‫اﻟﺮازي ﰲ ﻫﺬا اﳉﺎﻧﺐ ﺣﻴﺚ ﻛﺎن اﻟﺮازي ﻣﻜﺜﺮا ﻣﻦ اﺳﺘﺨﺪام ﻫﺬﻩ اﻷﺳﺎﻟﻴﺐ ﰲ ﺣﲔ ﻗﻠﻞ اﻵﻣﺪي ﻣﻦ اﺳﺘﺨﺪاﻣﻬﺎ ﻣﻊ اﻋﺘﻤﺎدﻩ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ وﻫﺬا ﻣﺎ ﺟﻌﻞ ﻋﺒﺎرة اﻵﻣﺪي ﺳﻬﻠﺔ ﺑﺴﻴﻄﺔ ﻗﺮﻳﺒﺔ ﻟﻠﻔﻬﻢ أﻛﺜﺮ ﻣﻦ ﻋﺒﺎرات اﻟﺮازي ﰲ‬
‫"اﶈﺼﻮل"‪...‬اﻹﻛﺜﺎر ﻣﻦ اﻷدﻟﺔ ﻋﻨﺪ اﻟﺮازي وﻗﻠﺘﻬﺎ ﻋﻨﺪ اﻵﻣﺪي ﻫﻲ اﻟﻔﺮق اﳉﻮﻫﺮي اﻷﺑﺮز ﺑﲔ ﻣﺪرﺳﱵ اﻟﺮازي واﻵﻣﺪي‬
‫‪• Ibn Khaldūn writes [2:201]:‬‬
‫ﰒ ﳋﺺ ﻫﺬﻩ اﻟﻜﺘﺐ اﻷرﺑﻌﺔ ﻓﺤﻼن ﻣﻦ اﳌﺘﻜﻠﻤﲔ اﳌﺘﺄﺧﺮﻳﻦ وﳘﺎ‪ :‬اﻹﻣﺎم ﻓﺨﺮ اﻟﺪﻳﻦ ﺑﻦ اﳋﻄﻴﺐ ﰲ ﻛﺘﺎب "اﶈﺼﻮل" وﺳﻴﻒ اﻟﺪﻳﻦ اﻵﻣﺪي ﰲ ﻛﺘﺎب "اﻹﺣﻜﺎم" واﺧﺘﻠﻔﺖ ﻃﺮاﺋﻘﻬﻤﺎ ﰲ اﻟﻔّﻦ ﺑﲔ اﻟﺘﺤﻘﻴﻖ واﳊﺠﺎج ﻓﺎﺑﻦ‬
‫اﳋﻄﻴﺐ أﻣﻴﻞ إﱃ اﻹﺳﺘﻜﺜﺎر ﻣﻦ اﻷدﻟﺔ واﻹﺣﺘﺠﺎج واﻵﻣﺪي ﻣﻮﻟﻊ ﺑﺘﺤﻘﻴﻖ اﳌﺬاﻫﺐ وﺗﻔﺮﻳﻊ اﳌﺴﺎﺋﻞ‬
The roles of Al-Bayḍāwī (d.685 AH), Ibn al-Ḥājib (d.646 AH) and Tāj al-Dīn al-Subkī (d.771 AH)
• Al-Bayḍāwī (d.685 AH) summarised ‫ اﳊﺎﺻﻞ‬and ‫ اﻟﺘﺤﺼﻴﻞ‬in a book titled ‫ﻣﻨﻬﺎج اﻟﻮﺻﻮل إﱃ ﻋﻠﻢ اﻷﺻﻮل‬
• Many commentaries were written upon Al-Bayḍāwī’s book including Al-Isnawī (d.772 AH)’s ‫ﺎﻳﺔ اﻟﺴﻮل‬t
• Sayf al-Dīn al-Āmidī (d.631 AH) summarised his book in another book titled ‫ﻣﻨﺘﻬﻰ اﻟﺴﻮل‬
• A Mālikī scholar, Ibn al-Ḥājib (d.646 AH) took this book and another book of Al-Āmidī titled ‫ ﻏﺎﻳﺔ اﻷﻣﻞ ﰲ ﻋﻠﻢ اﳉﺪل‬and
summarised it in a book titled ‫ﻣﻨﺘﻬﻰ اﻟﻮﺻﻮل واﻷﻣﻞ ﰲ ﻋﻠﻤﻲ اﻷﺻﻮل واﳉﺪل‬, he then summarised this book further in what became
famously known as ‫ﳐﺘﺼﺮ اﺑﻦ اﳊﺎﺟﺐ‬
• Ironically, ‫ اﶈﺼﻮل‬of Al-Rāzī (d.606 AH) was generally considered more difficult to understand than ‫ اﻹﺣﻜﺎم‬of Al-Āmidī (d.631
AH), however, with these summaries, the matter changed. The ‘summary’ of ‫ اﶈﺼﻮل‬by Al-Bayḍāwī (d.685 AH) was easier to
understand than the ‘summary’ of ‫ اﻹﺣﻜﺎم‬of Al-Āmidī (d.631 AH). Dr. Hasanat writes [pg.240]:
‫ﺧﺘﺼﺎرﻩ ﺑﻮﺟﻪ أﻛﺜﺮ ﺳﻬﻮﻟﺔ ﻣﻦ أﺻﻠﻪ وأﻣﺎ اﻵﻣﺪي‬Q ‫ﻓﻔﻲ ﺣﲔ ﻛﺎن اﶈﺼﻮل أﻛﺜﺮ ﺻﻌﻮﺑﺔ ﻣﻦ اﻹﺣﻜﺎم ﻟﻶﻣﺪي ﻗﺎم اﻟﺒﻴﻀﺎي‬...‫ﳐﺘﺼﺮ اﺑﻦ اﳊﺎﺟﺐ أدق ﻣﺘﻮن ﻋﻠﻢ اﻷﺻﻮل وأﻋﻘﺪﻫﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ اﻹﻃﻼق‬
‫ﺧﺘﺼﺎرﻩ اﺑﻦ اﳊﺎﺟﺐ ﻓﺠﻌﻞ ﻣﻨﻪ أﻛﺜﺮ ﺻﻌﻮﺑﺔ وﺑﺬﻟﻚ ﳛﺼﻞ اﻟﺘﻮازن ﺑﲔ ﻃﺮﻳﻘﱵ اﻟﺮازي واﻵﻣﺪي ﻣﻦ ﺣﻴﺚ اﻟﺼﻌﻮﺑﺔ واﻟﺴﻬﻮﻟﺔ‬Q ‫ﻓﺤﲔ ﻛﺎن ﻛﺘﺎﺑﻪ أﻛﺜﺮ ﺳﻬﻮﻟﺔ ﻗﺎم‬
• However, ‫ ﳐﺘﺼﺮ اﺑﻦ اﳊﺎﺟﺐ‬is the most commentated upon book in Uṣūl al-Fiqh, with over 76 commentaries written upon it
• Tāj al-Dīn al-Subkī (d.771 AH), son of the venerated Taqī al-Dīn al-Subkī (d.756 AH), who had already written a commentary
upon Mukhtaṣār Ibn al-Ḥājib (d.646 AH) (‫ )رﻓﻊ اﳊﺎﺟﺐ ﻋﻦ ﳐﺘﺼﺮ اﺑﻦ اﳊﺎﺟﺐ‬and Al-Minhāj of Al-Bayḍāwī (d.685 AH) (‫ﺎج ﰲ ﺷﺮح اﳌﻨﻬﺎج‬°‫)اﻹ‬,
now combined between these two approaches in a book titled ‫ﲨﻊ اﳉﻮاﻣﻊ‬
Dr. Hasanat writes [pg.240]:
"‫ﺎج‬°‫ﻫﺬا ﻋﺒﺎرة ﻋﻦ ﻣﱳ ﳐﺘﺼﺮ ﰲ أﺻﻮل اﻟﻔﻘﻪ واﻟﺪﻳﻦ أراد اﻟﺘﺎج اﻟﺴﺒﻜﻲ أن ﳚﻤﻊ ﻓﻴﻪ ﺧﻼﺻﺔ ﻣﺎ ﺗﻮﺻﻠﺖ إﻟﻴﻪ ﻗﺮﳛﺘﻪ ﻣﻦ آراء وﻣﺴﺎﺋﻞ أﺻﻮﻟﻴﺔ واﻟﱵ ﻛﺎن ﻗﺪ اﺳﺘﻤﺪ أﻛﺜﺮﻫﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺷﺮﺣﻴﻪ "اﻹ‬
‫و"رﻓﻊ اﳊﺎﺟﺐ" وﻗﺪ ذﻛﺮ ﻟﻨﺎ اﻟﺘﺎج اﻟﺴﺒﻜﻲ أﻧﻪ ﲨﻊ ﻣﺼﻨﻔﻪ ﻫﺬا ﻣﻦ زﻫﺎء ﻣﺎﺋﺔ ﻣﺼﻨّﻒ وﺑّﲔ ﻟﻨﺎ أﻧّﻪ ﱂ ﻳﻘﺘﺼﺮ ﻋﻠﻰ اﳌﻮﺟﻮد ﰲ ﻛﺘﺐ اﻷﺻﻮﻟﻴﲔ ﻓﺤﺴﺐ ﺑﻞ ﺿﻤﻊ ﺷﻴﺌﺎ ﻛﺜﲑا ﻣﻦ ﻛﺘﺐ اﻟﻔﻘﻬﺎء‬
‫واﶈﺪﺛﲔ واﳌﻔﺴﺮﻳﻦ وﻏﲑﻫﻢ‬
The stages of the development of Ḥanafī Uṣūl al-Fiqh
Dr. Haytham Khaznah divides the development into stages:
1) Birth stage (‫)ﻣﺮﺣﻠﺔ اﻟﻨﺸﻮء‬: from 17 AH when ʿUmar RA sent ʿAbdullah ibn Masʿūd to Kūfah until 300 AH, the key
features of this stage were:
• The impact of ʿAbdullah ibn Masʿūd
• The impact of Ibrāhīm al-Nakhaʿī
• The impact of Imām Abū Ḥanīfah and his two students, Abū Yūsuf and Muḥammad
• The impact of the students of Imām Abū Yūsuf and Imām Muḥammad
2) Codification stage (‫)ﻣﺮﺣﻠﺔ اﻟﺘﺪوﻳﻦ‬: from 300 AH until 500 AH, this was the golden age of the development of Ḥanafī
Uṣūl al-Fiqh as it led to the development of:
• The Madrasah of ʿIrāq in Uṣūl – founded by Abu’l Ḥasan al-Karkhī (d.340 AH)
• The Madrasah of Samarqand – founded by Abū Manṣūr al-Māturidī (d.333 AH)
• The role of Abū Zayd al-Dabūsī (d.430 AH) in combining the two Madrasahs
• The roles of Shams al-A’immah al-Sarakhsī (d.483 AH) and Fakhr al-Islām al-Bazdawī (d.482 AH)
3) Standardization stage (‫)ﻣﺮﺣﻠﺔ اﻹﺳﺘﻘﺮار‬: from 500 AH onwards, the key features of this stage were:
• The acceptance of the approach of Shams al-A’immah al-Sarakhsī (d.483 AH) and Fakhr al-Islām al-Bazdawī
(d.482 AH)
• The appearance of the Ṭarīqah of combination (‫ )ﻃﺮﻳﻘﺔ اﳉﻤﻊ‬through the work of Ibn al-Sāʿātī (d.694 AH)
Geographical Distribution of the Ḥanafīs
Mā Warā al-Nahr (Tansoxianna) and Khurāsān and Khuwārizm
Geographical Distribution of the Ḥanafīs
A closer look at Ma Wara Al Nahr (Transoxianna):
Geographical Distribution of the Ḥanafīs
A closer look at Khurasan:
‫‪Birth Stage - The role of Imām Abū Ḥanīfah and his students Imām Abū Yūsuf and Imām Muḥammad‬‬
‫‪• Some basic Uṣūl have been recorded from Abū Ḥanīfah regarding his legal methodology, they‬‬
‫‪include:‬‬
‫‪• Al-Bayhaqī (d.458 AH) narrates [Al-Madkhal 2:533] from ‘Abdullah ibn al-Mubārak (d.181 AH) who‬‬
‫‪states that Imām Abū Ḥanῑfah (d.150 AH) said:‬‬
‫إذا ﺟﺎء ﻋﻦ اﻟﻨﱯ ﺻﻠﻰ ﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ وﺳﻠﻢ ﻓﻌﻠﻰ اﻟﺮأس واﻟﻌﲔ وإذا ﺟﺎء ﻋﻦ أﺻﺤﺎب اﻟﻨﱯ ﺻﻠﻰ ﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ وﺳﻠﻢ ﳔﺘﺎر ﻣﻦ ﻗﻮﳍﻢ وإذا ﺟﺎء ﻋﻦ اﻟﺘﺎﺑﻌﲔ زاﲪﻨﺎﻫﻢ‬
‫‪• Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr (d.463 AH) narrates [Al-Intiqā, pg.265] from Yaḥyā ibn Ḍurays that he heard Imām‬‬
‫‪Abū Ḥanῑfah (d.150 AH) say:‬‬
‫إﱐ آﺧﺬ ﺑﻜﺘﺎب ﷲ إذا وﺟﺪﺗﻪ ﻓﻤﺎ ﱂ أﺟﺪﻩ ﻓﻴﻪ أﺧﺬت ﺑﺴﻨﺔ رﺳﻮل ﷲ واﻵ‪X‬ر اﻟﺼﺤﺎح ﻋﻨﻪ اﻟﱵ ﻓﺸﺖ ﰲ أﻳﺪي اﻟﺜﻘﺎت ﻋﻦ اﻟﺜﻘﺎت ﻓﺈذا ﱂ أﺟﺪ ﰲ ﻛﺘﺎب ﷲ‬
‫وﻻ ﺳﻨﺔ رﺳﻮل ﷲ أﺧﺬت ﺑﻘﻮل أﺻﺤﺎﺑﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺷﺌﺖ وأدع ﻗﻮل ﻣﻦ ﺷﺌﺖ ﰒ ﻻ أﺧﺮج ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﳍﻢ إﱃ ﻗﻮل ﻏﲑﻫﻢ ﻓﺈذا اﻧﺘﻬﻰ اﻷﻣﺮ إﱃ إﺑﺮاﻫﻴﻢ واﻟﺸﻌﱯ واﳊﺴﻦ‬
‫وﻋﻄﺎء واﺑﻦ ﺳﲑﻳﻦ وﺳﻌﻴﺪ ﺑﻦ اﳌﺴﻴﺐ ﻓﻘﻮم ﻗﺪ اﺟﺘﻬﺪوا ﻓﻠﻲ أن أﺟﺘﻬﺪ ﻛﻤﺎ اﺟﺘﻬﺪوا‬
‫‪• Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr (d.463 AH) narrates [Al-Intiqā, pg.199] from al-Ḥasan ibn Ṣāliḥ that he said:‬‬
‫ﻛﺎن اﻟﻨﻌﻤﺎن ﺑﻦ ‪X‬ﺑﺖ ﻓﻬﻤﺎ ﻋﺎﳌﺎ ﻣﺘﺜﺒﺘﺎ ﰲ ﻋﻠﻤﻪ إذا ﺻﺢ ﻋﻨﺪﻩ اﳋﱪ ﻋﻦ رﺳﻮل ﷲ ﺻﻠﻰ ﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ وﺳﻠﻢ ﱂ ﻳﻌﺪﻩ إﱃ ﻏﲑﻩ‬
‫)‪• Ibn Abi’l –Awām (d.335 AH) narrated [Faḍā’il Abī Ḥanīfah, pg.150] Yūnus ibn Abῑ Isḥāq (d.159 AH‬‬
‫‪states:‬‬
‫ﻛﺎن اﻟﻨﻌﻤﺎن ﺑﻦ ‪X‬ﺑﺖ ﺷﺪﻳﺪ اﻹﺗﺒﺎع ﻟﺼﺤﻴﺢ ﺣﺪﻳﺚ رﺳﻮل ﷲ ﺻﻠﻰ ﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ وﺳﻠﻢ ﻓﺈن ﻋﺴﺮ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻣﺎ ﻳﺴﺘﺪل ﺑﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺣﺪﻳﺚ رﺳﻮل ﷲ ﺻﻠﻰ ﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ وﺳﻠﻢ‬
‫أﺧﺬ ﲟﺎ ﺻﺤﺖ اﻟﺮواﻳﺔ ﺑﻪ ﻋﻦ أﺻﺤﺎﺑﻪ ﻣﻦ ﻋﻠﻢ أﻫﻞ اﻟﻜﻮﻓﺔ ﻓﺈن ﺧﻮﻟﻒ ﰲ ذﻟﻚ إﱃ ﻏﲑ ﻋﻠﻢ أﻫﻞ ﺑﻠﺪﻩ ﱂ ﳚﺎوز ﻣﺎ أدرك ﻋﻠﻴﻪ أﻫﻞ اﻟﻜﻮﻓﺔ ﻋﻦ أﻫﻞ اﻟﻜﻮﻓﺔ‬
‫‪• With that being said, no book in Uṣūl is found from the A’immah of the Madhhab‬‬
Birth Stage - The role of ʿĪsā ibn Abān (d.221 AH)
• Although there are not a lot of statements on Uṣūl al-Fiqh from the students of
Imām Muḥammad and Imām Abū Yūsuf, there is one student of Imām
Muḥammad who played an integral role in designating the Uṣūl al-Fiqh that
the Ḥanafīs later came to rely upon; the ʿIrāqī scholar ʿĪsā ibn Abān (d.221 AH)
• Al-Ṣaymarī relates [Akhbār Abī Ḥanīfah, pg.132] an interesting story of how he
became a student of Imām Muḥammad which perhaps sheds light on why he
played an integral role in Ḥanafī Uṣūl al-Fiqh:
Birth Stage - The role of ʿĪsā ibn Abān (d.221 AH)
• After this incident, he went on to narrate ‫ اﳊﺠﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ أﻫﻞ اﳌﺪﻳﻨﺔ‬from Imām
Muḥammad, whose narration is the sole narration that exists of the book today
• He also wrote arguably the first books ever in Ḥanafī Uṣūl al-Fiqh titled
‫ اﳊﺠﺞ اﻟﻜﺒﲑ‬and ‫اﳊﺠﺞ اﻟﺼﻐﲑ‬. The story behind why he wrote them has been
recorded by Al-Ṣaymarī [Manāqib, pg.141] and Dhahabī [Tārīkh al-Islām,
16:312]:
Birth Stage - The role of ʿĪsā ibn Abān (d.221 AH)
• In ‫ اﳊﺠﺞ اﻟﻜﺒﲑ‬and ‫اﳊﺠﺞ اﻟﺼﻐﲑ‬, Imām Kawtharī states that he quotes Uṣūl from Imām Muḥammad directly. He writes:

Dr. Khaznah writes [pg.125]:

‫( ﻣﺎ ﻳﻀﻴﻔﻪ وﻳﺴﺘﻨﺒﻄﻪ ﻣﻦ ﻛﻼم ﺷﻴﺨﻪ أو ﻏﲑﻩ ﻣﻦ أﺋﻤﺔ‬٣ ‫( ﻣﻌﺎﱐ ﻛﻼﻣﻪ اﺳﺘﻮﻋﺒﻬﺎ وأﺛﺒﺘﻬﺎ ¶ﻟﻔﺎظ ﻣﻦ ﻋﻨﺪﻩ أو‬٢ ‫( إﻣﺎ ﻋﺒﺎرات ﻳﻨﻘﻠﻬﺎ ﻋﻨﻪ أو‬١ ‫ن ﻋﻦ ﺷﻴﺨﻪ ﳏﻤﺪ ﺑﻦ اﳊﺴﻦ ﻻ ﳜﺮج ﻋﻦ ﺛﻼﺛﺔ أﻣﻮر‬€‫إن ﻣﺎ ﻳﻨﻘﻠﻪ اﺑﻦ أ‬
‫اﳌﺬﻫﺐ‬
• He also wrote another book titled ‫ﻛﺘﺎب ﰲ اﻟﺮد ﻋﻠﻰ ﺑﺸﺮ اﳌﺮﻳﺴﻲ واﻟﺸﺎﻓﻌﻲ ﰲ ﺷﺮوط ﻗﺒﻮل اﻷﺧﺒﺎر‬
• He is also the solve ‘surviving’ narrator of Imām Muḥammad’s polemical book ‫اﳊﺠﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ أﻫﻞ اﳌﺪﻳﻨﺔ‬
• These three books of ʿĪsā ibn Abān have not reached us, but they have been preserved by Abū Bakar al-Jasṣāṣ in his book ‫اﻟﻔﺼﻮل ﰲ اﻷﺻﻮل‬, the
earliest Ḥanafī book in Uṣūl al-Fiqh to have reached us
• Al-Jasṣāṣ quotes extensively from ʿĪsā ibn Abān in his ‫اﻟﻔﺼﻮل ﰲ اﻷﺻﻮل‬
• Even if ʿĪsā ibn Abān is not quoting the A’immah directly, the Uṣūl he attributes as the Madhhab of the Ḥanafīs can easily be seen in the
dialectical books of Imām Muḥammad and Imām Abū Yūsuf
• ʿĪsā ibn ʿAbān himself was influenced by the Muʿtazilī creed (not entirely the Uṣūl of the Muʿtazilah in ʿIlm al-Kalām as that had not yet
fully developed into the realm of Uṣūl) and was said to hold the view of the createdness of the Qur’ān, and therefore, it is noted that near
the end of the Birth Stage (around 200-300 AH), Ḥanafī Uṣūl al-Fiqh began to be slightly influenced by the Muʿtazilah in creed.
• Two other scholars after ʿĪsā ibn Abān (d.221 AH) that continued to derive further Uṣūl from the statements of the A’immah were Abū
Khāzim (d.292 AH) and Abū Saʿīd al-Bardhaʿī (d.317 AH), both of whom were the most important Ḥanafī scholars of their time, the latter
being the most prominent teacher of the scholar who would become the Shaykh of the Madrasah of ʿIrāq; Abu’l Ḥasan al-Karkhī
Codification Stage: Madrasah al-ʿIrāq: The role of Al-Karkhī (d.340 AH) & his student Abū Bakr al-Jasṣāṣ al-Rāzī (d.370 AH)
The Role of Al-Karkhī (d.340 AH)
• As mentioned in the previous slide, Abu’l Ḥasan al-Karkhī (d.340 AH) is largely considered the Shaykh of the Madrasah of ʿIrāq in Uṣūl and the most important
Ḥanafī scholar in that period as the Madhhab officially became a school of thought through his efforts. Melchert writes [Formation of Sunni Schools of Law,
xxvii]:

• The reason behind this, Melchert argues [pg.125-28] is that ‘he had more known students than any Ḥanafī teacher before him’ and ’he was the first to leave
students who wrote commentaries on his Mukhtaṣar’, thus ‘the growth of a commentary tradition around core school texts’ is an indication of the presence of
a classical school or guild. Melchert states [pg.60] that scholars during this period began to write commentaries mainly upon Al-Jāmiʿ al-Ṣaghīr and Al-Jāmiʿ
al-Kabīr.
• The original founder of the Madrasah of ʿIrāq was ʿĪsā ibn Abān (d.221 AH), but it was Al-Karkhī who further codified these Uṣūl. Dr Khaznah writes [pg.135]:
‫ﱂ ﺗﺘﻤﻴﺰ اﳌﺪرﺳﺔ اﻟﻌﺮاﻗﻴﺔ ﺑﻮﺟﻮد ﻣﻨﺎﻫﺞ ﻣﺘﻜﺎﻣﻠﺔ وﴰﻮل ﻟﻜﻞ ﻣﺒﺎﺣﺚ اﻷﺻﻮل ﺑﺘﻘﺮﻳﺮ اﳌﺴﺎﺋﻞ واﻟﻘﻮاﻋﺪ اﻷﺻﻮﻟﻴﺔ ووﺿﻌﻬﺎ ﻟﻠﻤﺬﻫﺐ اﳊﻨﻔﻲ إﻻ ﺑﻌﺪ ﻇﻬﻮر أﰊ اﳊﺴﻦ اﻟﻜﺮﺧﻲ ﺷﻴﺦ اﻷﺻﻮل ﰲ اﻟﻌﺮاق‬
• Imām al-Karkhī extracted many more Uṣūl using the Furūʿ of the A’immah (known as Takhrīj al-Uṣūl min al-Furūʿ) as well as extracting many new Masā’il or
details to existing Masā’īl using the Uṣūl that he had extracted from the Furūʿ
• Al-Karkhī’s views are mainly found in:
1) The book of his protégé: Abū Bakar al-Jasṣāṣ (d.370 AH) in his ‫( اﻟﻔﺼﻮل ﰲ اﻷﺻﻮل‬wherein ʿĪsā ibn Abān, Abū Khāzim and Abū Saʿīd al-Bardaʿī’s views are also
found)
2) The books of Qāḍī ʿAbd al-Jabbār al-Muʿtazilī () (his student’s student) and Abu’l Ḥusayn al-Baṣrī ()
3) The book ‫ ﻣﺴﺎﺋﻞ اﳋﻼف‬by Al-Ṣaymarī (d.436 AH)
• Al-Karkhī was considered a leading scholar from the Muʿtazilah as Al-Dhahabī describes him as []: ‫رأس ﰲ اﻹﻋﺘﺰال‬. Along with Abū ʿAlī al-Jubbā’ī (d.303 AH) and Abū
Hāshīm al-Jubbā’ī (d.321 AH), Al-Karkhī was considered a leader of the Muʿtazilah. Also, as mentioned earlier, he was the teacher of Abū ʿAbdillah al-Baṣrī
(d.369 AH) who was the teacher of Qāḍī ʿAbd al-Jabbār al-Muʿtazilī (d.415 AH), the author of ‫اﻟﻌﻤﺪ‬
Codification Stage: Madrasah al-ʿIrāq: The role of Al-Karkhī (d.340 AH) & his student Abū Bakr al-Jasṣāṣ al-Rāzī (d.370 AH)
The Role of Al-Jasṣāṣ (d.370 AH)
• Born in Al-Rayy (modern-day Tehran) in 305 AH, the capital of the ruling Buyid dynasty, Al-Jasṣāṣ moved to Baghdad during his teenage years studying under
the leading scholar Al-Karkhī ().
• He wrote a commentary upon his teacher’s Mukhtaṣar as well as a commentary upon the celebrated Egyptian Ḥanafī Imām al-Ṭahḥāwī. The latter has been
printed.
• Dr. Khaznah writes [pg.140]:
‫ﺗﻠﻘﻰ اﳉﺼﺎص ﻋﻠﻢ اﻷﺻﻮل ﻋﻦ ﺷﻴﺨﻪ اﻟﻜﺮﺧﻲ ﻓﺪّون ﻫﺬا اﻟﻌﻠﻢ وﺣﺪد ﻓﻴﻪ ﻣﻔﺎﻫﻴﻤﻪ وﻗﻮاﻧﻴﻨﻪ ﻋﻠﻰ أﺳﺲ ﻋﻠﻤﻴﺔ ﻣﺘﻴﻨﺔ وأﻋﻄﻰ ﻷﺻﻮل اﻟﻔﻘﻪ اﳊﻨﻔﻲ ﳕﻄﺎ ﺟﺪﻳﺪا ﰲ اﻟﺘﺪوﻳﻦ ﻏﲑ ﺳﺎﺑﻘﻴﻪ ﻓﻘﺪ ﺗﻜﺎﻣﻞ اﻟﺘﺪوﻳﻦ ﻋﻨﺪﻩ وﻛﺎن ﺷﺎﻣﻼ ﻷﻏﻠﺐ ﻣﺒﺎﺣﺜﻪ اﻟﺮﺋﻴﺴﻴﺔ‬
‫ن وﻏﲑﻫﻢ ﻣﻦ اﻷﺻﻮﻟﻴﲔ ﻓﻜﺎن أول ﻣﺼﻨﻒ ﺷﺎﻣﻞ ﻟﻸﺻﻮل وﺻﻞ إﻟﻴﻨﺎ‬T‫وﻣﺜﺒﺘﺎ آراء أﺻﻮﻟﻴﻲ اﳊﻨﻔﻴﺔ ﻛﺸﻴﺨﻪ اﻟﻜﺮﺧﻲ وﻋﻴﺴﻰ ﺑﻦ أ‬
• His ‫ اﻟﻔﺼﻮل ﰲ اﻷﺻﻮل‬was considered an introduction to his book ‫ أﺣﻜﺎم اﻟﻘﺮآن‬as he writes in his ‫[ أﺣﻜﺎم اﻟﻘﺮآن‬1:1]
‫ﻗﺪ ﻗّﺪﻣﻨﺎ ﰲ ﺻﺪر ﻫﺬا اﻟﻜﺘﺎب ﻣﻘﺪﻣﺔ ﺗﺸﺘﻤﻞ ﻋﻠﻰ ذﻛﺮ ﲨﻞ ﳑﺎ ﻻ ﻳﺴﻊ ﺟﻬﻠﻪ ﻣﻦ أﺻﻮل اﻟﺘﻮﺣﻴﺪ وﺗﻮﻃﺌﺔ ﳌﺎ ﳛﺘﺎج إﻟﻴﻪ ﻣﻦ ﻣﻦ ﻣﻌﺮﻓﺔ ﻃﺮق اﺳﺘﻨﺒﺎط ﻣﻌﺎﱐ اﻟﻘﺮآن واﺳﺘﺨﺮاج دﻻﺋﻠﻪ وإﺣﻜﺎﻣﻪ‬
• Much like his teacher, Al-Jasṣāṣ (d.370 AH) also held Muʿtazilī beliefs. Despite this, unlike Al-Karkhī, the Muʿtazilah did not consider him an authority. Despite
three researchers of the book ‫ اﻟﻔﺼﻮل ﰲ اﻷﺻﻮل‬claiming that Al-Jasṣāṣ was not a Muʿtazilite in belief, Dr. Khaznah shows some clear textual proofs from the book
to show that he was. This is excluding his denial of the beatific vision and magic.
• It is important to mention, however, that unlike other Muʿtazilah, Al-Jasṣāṣ was not heavily engaged in ʿIlm al-Kalām. Furthermore, his interest in Ḥadīth is
evident. He was the student of Abū Bakar ibn Dāsah, the student of Imām Abū Dāwūd (d.275 AH). He presents most of the evidences in his Sharḥ Mukhtaṣar al-
Tahḥāwī with his own chain of narration to the authors of the books of Ḥadīth, especially Abū Dāwūd (d.275 AH). Sh. ʿAwwāmah writes [Muqaddimah Sunan
Abū Dāwūd 1:14]:
‫ ﺑﻜﺮ اﻟﺮازي اﳉﺼﺎص‬T‫ذﻟﻚ أن ﳑﻦ وﻗﻔﺖ ﻋﻠﻰ أﻧّﻪ ﲢّﻤﻞ اﻟﺴﻨﻦ ﻋﻦ اﺑﻦ داﺳﺔ ﻣﺒﺎﺷﺮة أ‬
Similarly, Murteza Bedir writes [pg.25]:
Codification Stage: Madrasah al-ʿIrāq: The role of Al-Karkhī (d.340 AH) & his student Abū Bakr al-Jasṣāṣ al-Rāzī (d.370 AH)

• Similarly, Sh. Sā’id Bakdāsh writes in the introduction to Sharḥ Mukhtaṣar al-Ṭahḥāwī:

• Sh. Sā’id also recalls an interesting dream he had:

• This is while Dr. Haytham Khaznah is adamant that he held Muʿtazilite views in more than just these Masā’il
Codification Stage: Madrasah al-ʿIrāq: The role of Al-Karkhī (d.340 AH) & his student Abū Bakr al-Jasṣāṣ al-Rāzī (d.370 AH)

The key Features of Madrasah al-ʿIrāq

• Developing Uṣūl from the Furūʿ of the A’immah, Al-Dabūsī (d.430 AH), Al-Sarakhsī (d.483 Ah) and Al-
Bazdawī (d.482 AH) would later follow them in this, Jasṣāṣ writes many times:
...‫وﻫﻲ ﻋﻨﺪي ﻣﺬﻫﺐ أﺻﺤﺎﺑﻨﺎ ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﻳﺪل ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻣﺴﺎﺋﻠﻬﻢ‬....‫وﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﺗﺪل أﺻﻮﳍﻢ وﻣﺴﺎﺋﻠﻬﻢ…وﻫﻮ أﺻﻞ ﺻﺤﻴﺢ ﺗﺴﺘﻤﺮ ﻣﺴﺎﺋﻠﻬﻢ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ‬
Murteza Bedir writes [pg.14]:

• Developing certain Uṣūl that were in conformity with the Uṣūl of the Muʿtazilah. Dr. Khaznah writes [pg.144]:
‫اﺗﻔﻖ اﻟﻌﺮاﻗﻴﻮن واﳌﻌﺘﺰﻟﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﻨﻬﺞ ﻗﻄﻌﻴﺔ دﻻﻟﺔ اﻷﻟﻔﺎظ اﻟﻈﺎﻫﺮة ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﻌﺎﻧﻴﻬﺎ ﻓﻜﺎﻧﺖ ﻣﺬاﻫﺒﻬﻢ ﰲ ﻣﺴﺎﺋﻞ ﻫﺬا‬...‫إن ﻟﻺﻋﺘﺰال •ﺛﲑا ﻛﺒﲑا وواﺿﺤﺎ ﰲ وﺿﻊ أﺻﻮل اﳌﺬﻫﺐ ﻋﻨﺪ اﻟﻌﺮاﻗﻴﲔ‬
‫ ﻣﺴﺄﻟﺔ اﻟﺘﺤﺴﲔ واﻟﺘﻘﺒﻴﺢ اﻟﻌﻘﻠﻴﲔ وﻣﺴﺄﻟﺔ وﺟﻮب ﺗﻌﻠﻴﻞ أﻓﻌﺎل ﷲ ﺗﻌﺎﱃ‬:‫اﺗﻔﻘﻮا ﻋﻠﻰ ﺑﻨﺎء ﻣﺴﺎﺋﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻰ اﻷﺻﻮل اﻟﻜﻼﻣﻴﺔ اﻹﻋﺘﺰاﻟﻴﺔ اﻟﺘﺎﻟﻴﺔ‬...‫اﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﻣﺘﻘﺎرﺑﺔ وﻣﺘﻮاﻓﻘﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ وﺟﻪ اﻹﲨﺎل‬
‫ذﻛﺮت أن اﻟﻜﺮﺧﻲ ﺷﻴﺦ اﳌﺪرﺳﺔ اﻟﻌﺮاﻗﻴﺔ ورﺋﻴﺴﻬﺎ ﺑﻼ ﻣﻨﺎزع ﻓﻜﺎن أﺛﺮﻩ اﻷﺑﺮز ﰲ وﺿﻊ اﳌﺴﺎﺋﻞ اﻷﺻﻮﻟﻴﺔ وﻧﺴﺒﺘﻬﺎ ﻟﻠﻤﺬﻫﺐ وذﻛﺮت أن اﳉﺼﺎص ﲤﻢ ﻋﻤﻞ‬....‫وﻣﺴﺄﻟﺔ ﺧﻠﻖ أﻓﻌﺎل اﻟﻌﺒﺎد‬
‫ﺷﻴﺨﻪ‬
Important Note:
• Although Al-Karkhī (d.340 AH) and Al-Jasṣāṣ (d.370 AH) were Muʿtazilah in creed (ʿAqīdah), this did not heavily
impact their Uṣūl as much mainly because their manner of deriving Uṣūl was through the Furūʿ of the A’immah of
their Hanafī Madhhab. This is whilst other Muʿtazilah, such as Abū ʿAbdillah al-Baṣrī (d.369 AH) and his student ʿAbd
al-Jabbār al-Muʿtazilī () were heavily involved in ʿIlm al-Kalām which they used to derive Uṣūl.
Codification Stage: Madrasah Samarqand: The role of Abū Manṣūr al-Māturidī (d.333 AH)

• Not much would have been known about this school of thought had it not been for the books ‫ ﻣﻴﺰان اﻷﺻﻮل ﰲ ﻧﺘﺎﺋﺞ اﻟﻌﻘﻮل‬of ʿAlā al-Dīn al-
Samarqandī (d.539 AH) – the student of Abu’l Yusr al-Bazdawī (d.493 AH) and father-in-law of Al-Kāsānī (d.587 AH) and author of
‫ ﲢﻔﺔ اﻟﻔﻘﻬﺎء‬- and ‫ ﻛﺘﺎب ﰲ أﺻﻮل اﻟﻔﻘﻪ‬of Maḥmūd ibn Zayd al-Lamishī (d. ca early 6th century). This is because many of the early books of this
school have been lost.
• The founder of this school was Abū Manṣūr al-Māturidī (d.333 AH) and his students (‫)ﻣﺸﺎﻳﺦ ﲰﺮﻗﻨﺪ‬. Al-Māturidī himself wrote ‫ﻛﺘﺎب اﳉﺪل‬
and ‫ﻛﺘﺎب ﻣﺂﺧﺬ اﻟﺸﺮاﺋﻊ‬
• However, although we saw in the works of Al-Dabūsī (), Al-Sarakhsī (d.483 AH) and Al-Bazdawī (d.482 AH) indications to there
being another Madrasah other than the Madrasah of ʿIrāq, the school did not become popular until Al-Samarqandī (d.539 AH) and
Al-Lāmishī (d. ca early 6th century) came and wrote according to its approach essentially reviving the Madrasah Samarqand, Al-
Samarqandī having come across Al-Māturidī’s two books. Therefore, Al-Samarqandī (d.539 AH) writes [Mīzan, pg.3]:
‫ﰒ ﻫﺠﺮ اﻟﻘﺴﻢ اﻷول إﻣﺎ ﻟﺘﻮﺣﺶ اﻷﻟﻔﺎظ واﳌﻌﺎﱐ وإﻣﺎ ﻟﻘﺼﻮر اﳍﻤﻢ واﻟﺘﻮاﱐ واﺷﺘﻬﺮ اﻟﻘﺴﻢ اﻵﺧﺮ ﳌﻴﻞ اﻟﻔﻘﻬﺎء إﱃ اﻟﻔﻘﻪ اﶈﺾ‬
Dr. Khaznah writes [pg.158]:
‫وﳍﺬا ﺟﻌﻠﺖ ﻛﺘﺎﰊ اﳌﻴﺰان ﻟﻠﺴﻤﺮﻗﻨﺪي وأﺻﻮل اﻟﻼﻣﺸﻲ ﻣﺼﺪرﻳﻦ ﻣﻌﺘﻤﺪﻳﻦ دون ﻏﲑﳘﺎ ﻵراء ﻣﺸﺎﻳﺦ ﲰﺮﻗﻨﺪ وإﻣﺎﻣﻬﻢ أﰊ ﻣﻨﺼﻮر اﳌﺎﺗﺮﻳﺪي اﻷﺻﻮﻟﻴﺔ‬
• After these two scholars, quoting the approach of the Madrasah Samarqand became a common feature in Uṣūl books such as ‫ﻛﺸﻒ‬
‫ اﻷﺳﺮار‬by Al-Bukhārī (d.730 AH)
The key Features of Madrasah Samarqand
• They would not present as much Furūʿ as they did not consider the Furūʿ to be the basis for extracting Uṣūl
• Usage of ʿIlm al-Kalām, specifically Māturidī Kalām, in making many Uṣūl
• Usage of ʿIlm al-Manṭiq to properly define terminological words (‫)ﻣﺼﻄﻠﺤﺎت‬
Codification Stage: Madrasah Samarqand: The role of Abū Manṣūr al-Māturidī ()

Similarity between Madrasah Samarqand and Ṭarīqah al-Mutakallimūn

• They both rely upon ʿIlm al-Manṭiq and ʿIlm al-Kalām to extract Uṣūl from the original sources rather than rely upon the Furūʿ of
the A’immah. Dr. Khaznah write [pg.161]:
‫اﻋﺘﻤﺎد وﺿﻊ اﻷﺻﻮل ﲟﺎ ﻳﺘﻮاﻓﻖ ﻣﻊ ﻗﻮاﻋﺪ اﳌﻌﻘﻮل وﻋﻠﻢ اﻟﻜﻼم وإن ﺧﺎﻟﻔﺖ ﻫﺬﻩ اﻷﺻﻮل اﻟﻔﺮوع اﻟﻔﻘﻬﻴﺔ اﳌﺮوﻳﺔ ﻋﻦ أﺋﻤﺔ اﳌﺬﻫﺐ‬
Despite this, the Madrasah Samarqand did have some consideration of the Furūʿ which is why on many occasions, their view is in
line with the Madrasah al-ʿIrāq. Dr. Khaznah writes [pg.161]:
‫ب اﻟﺴﻨﺔ‬ƒ ‫ﻛﺜﺮ آراء اﻟﻌﺮاﻗﻴﲔ ﰲ‬- ‫وﻣﻦ اﻷﻣﺜﻠﺔ أﻳﻀﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺮاﻋﺎة اﻟﺴﻤﺮﻗﻨﺪﻳﲔ ﻟﻠﻔﺮوع اﻟﻔﻘﻬﻴﺔ أﺧﺬﻫﻢ‬
• Usage of ʿIlm al-Manṭiq and ʿIlm al-Kalām to define and explain terms
• The framework of where each discussion is found in like the Ṭarīqah al-Mutakallimūn
After discussing all this, Dr. Khaznah states that the Madrasah Samarqand preceded the Ṭarīrqah al-Mutakallimūn. He also states
that the Muʿtazilah from the Ṭarīqah al-Mutakallimūn had learnt from the scholars of the Madrasah al-ʿIrāq of the Ḥanafīs. He then
concludes [pg.163]:
‫وﺑﻌﺪ ذﻛﺮ ﻫﺬﻳﻦ اﻷﻣﺮﻳﻦ أﺧﻠﺺ إﱃ ﻧﺘﻴﺠﺔ ﻣﻔﺎدﻫﺎ أن اﳊﻨﻔﻴﺔ – اﻟﻌﺮاﻗﻴﲔ واﻟﺴﻤﺮﻗﻨﺪﻳﲔ – ﻛﺎﻧﻮا ﺳﺎدة ﻋﻠﻰ اﻷﺻﻮل ﺑﻼ ﻣﻨﺎزع ﰲ اﻟﻘﺮن اﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ ﺣﱴ ﻣﻨﺘﺼﻒ اﻟﻘﺮن اﳋﺎﻣﺲ أي إﱃ ﺣﲔ ﻇﻬﻮر إﻣﺎم اﳊﺮﻣﲔ‬
‫اﳉﻮﻳﲏ واﻟﻐﺰاﱄ‬
Dr. Ḥasanat responds to this by stating that Imām al-Shāfiʿī preceded the Madrasah Samarqand, or it could be claimed that the
Madrasah Samarqand are a form of Ṭarīqah al-Mutakallimūn [pg.53]:
‫ﻗﺾ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‬± ‫ﺎ ﺗﻨﺴﺐ ﻧﺸﺄ|ﺎ إﱃ اﻟﻘﺎﺿﻲ ﻋﺒﺪ اﳉﺒﺎر ﻣﻊ أن ﺧﺰﻧﺔ ﻗﺪ‬°‫وﻳﺬﻟﻚ ﻳﺮد ﻋﻠﻰ ﻫﻴﺜﻢ ﺧﺰﻧﺔ ﺣﻴﺚ ادﻋﻰ أن ﻃﺮﻳﻘﺔ اﳌﺘﻜﻠﻤﲔ إﳕﺎ ﻇﻬﺮت ﰲ اﻟﻘﺮن اﻟﺮاﺑﻊ وأ‬...‫اﻹﻣﺎم اﻟﺸﺎﻓﻌﻲ ﻫﻮ واﺿﻊ ﻃﺮﻳﻘﺔ اﳌﺘﻜﻠﻤﲔ‬
‫ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ أﳌﺢ أن ﻃﺮﻳﻘﺔ اﳌﺘﻜﻠﻤﲔ إﳕﺎ ﻗﺎﻣﺖ ﻣﺘﺄﺛﺮة ﲟﺪرﺳﺔ اﻟﺴﻤﺮﻗﻨﺪﻳﲔ اﳊﻨﻔﻴﺔ وﺳﻠﻢ ﺑﻮﺟﻮد ﻣﺼﻨﻔﺎت ﻟﻺﻣﺎم اﳌﺎﺗﺮﻳﺪي وﺷﻴﻮﺧﻪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻫﺬﻩ اﻟﻄﺮﻳﻘﺔ وﻣﻌﻠﻮم أن اﻹﻣﺎم اﳌﺎﺗﺮﻳﺪي ﻗﺪ ﺳﺒﻖ اﻟﻘﺎﺿﻲ وﻣﻦ ذﻛﺮﻫﻢ ﺧﺰﻧﺔ‬
‫ﺑﻘﺮن ﻣﻦ اﻟﺰﻣﺎن ﻋﻠﻰ اﻷﻗﻞ‬
Codification Stage: The role of Abū Zayd al-Dabūsī (d.430 AH), Al-Sarakhsī (d.483 AH) & Al-Bazdawī (d.482 AH)
The Role of Al-Dabūsī (d.430 AH)
• For many centuries, the creed of the Muʿtazilah remained dominant amongst the Ḥanafīs, this also had an impact on
the Ḥanafī Uṣūl (though not heavily)
• This was until the start of the 300-400 AH century in which, through the appearance of Abu’l Ḥasan al-Ashʿarī () and
Abū Manṣūr al-Maturidī (), the leading scholars in ʿIlm al-Kalām aligned with the former or the latter thus
surpassing the Kalām (and therefore creed) of the Muʿtazilah
• By the end of 400 AH, almost all the Ḥanafīs were Māturidīs
• Al-Dabūsī travelled to ʿIrāq from Samarqand, having already studied the approach of the Madrasah of Samarqand.
He now took from the scholars of ʿIrāq including some of the students of Abū Bakar al-Jasṣāṣ (d.370 AH)
• Accordingly, when he now wrote his book ‫ﺗﻘﻮﱘ اﻷدﻟﺔ‬, he combined between the Madrasah of ʿIrāq and Madrasah of
Samarqand
• He took from the Madrasah al-ʿIrāq the idea of building Uṣūl from the Furūʿ thus presenting many Furūʿ in his book
as proof of the extracted Aṣl being correct, nonetheless, he contradicted the Madrasah al-ʿIrāq in those Uṣūl that
were directly connected with their Muʿtazilah beliefs in Kalām. He also took from the Madrasah Samarqand the
usage of ʿIlm al-Manṭiq (not ʿIlm al-Kalām) to properly define terms and organise sections.
• Along with this, Al-Dabūsī was not just someone who combined these two Madrasahs, rather, he produced many
more Uṣūl that had not yet been discussed and refined certain ideas in a more meticulous manner, especially in the
section of Qiyās. Dr Khaznah writes [pg.169]:
‫وﺧﻼﺻﺔ اﻟﻘﻮل أن اﻟﺪﺑﻮﺳﻲ ﻗﺪ أﺣﺪث ﺗﻐﻴﲑات ﻛﺜﲑة ﰲ أﺻﻮل اﳌﺬﻫﺐ اﳊﻨﻔﻲ وذﻟﻚ ﲜﻤﻌﻪ ﺑﻴﺖ ﻣﺪرﺳﱵ اﻟﻌﺮاق وﲰﺮﻗﻨﺪ ﻣﺮﺟﺤﺎ ﺑﲔ آراﺋﻬﻤﺎ وﲤﻴﺰﻩ ﲝﺴﻦ ﺗﻘﺴﻴﻢ اﳌﺒﺎﺣﺚ واﳌﺴﺎﺋﻞ‬
(‫اﻷﺻﻮﻟﻴﺔ وﲢﺪﻳﺪﻩ ﻟﻺﺻﻄﻼﺣﺎت واﳌﺪﻟﻮﻻت وﻓﺘﻘﻪ ﻣﺴﺎﺋﻞ وﻣﺒﺎﺣﺚ ﰲ اﻷﺻﻮل ﱂ ﻳﺴﺒﻖ إﻟﻴﻬﺎ ﺗﻠﻘﻔﻬﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺑﻌﺪﻩ ﻣﻦ اﳊﻨﻔﻴﺔ وﻏﲑﻫﻢ )ﻛﺎﻟﻐﺰاﱄ‬
Codification Stage: The role of Abū Zayd al-Dabūsī (d.430 AH), Al-Sarakhsī (d.483 AH) & Al-Bazdawī (d.482 AH)

The Role of Al-Sarakhsī (d.483 AH)

• Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad ibn Abī Sahal al-Sarakhsī was considered a leading scholar, originally born in
Khurāsān, but later moving to Bukhārā to study under Shams al-A’immah al-Ḥalwānī, serving to maintain Al-
Ḥalwānī’s legacy in Bukhārā
• These two scholars Al-Ḥalwānī and his student Al-Sarakhsī created a revolution in Transoxiana such that it
could be said that all the major Ḥanafīs who came after them had their tradition run through them. They
essentially caused a transfer of the Ḥanafī Madhhab from ʿIrāq to Transoxiana. Sh. Talal al-Azem writes [Rule-
Formulation, pg.67 & 77]:
Codification Stage: The role of Abū Zayd al-Dabūsī (d.430 AH), Al-Sarakhsī (d.483 AH) & Al-Bazdawī (d.482 AH)

The Role of Al-Sarakhsī (d.483 AH)

• Sh. Salmān Younas shows that it was the Ḥalwānī-Sarakhsī school that helped popularise the term Ẓāhir al-
Riwāyah [Authority in the Classical Ḥanafī School, pg.30 & 33]
Codification Stage: The role of Abū Zayd al-Dabūsī (d.430 AH), Al-Sarakhsī (d.483 AH) & Al-Bazdawī (d.482 AH)

• He was jailed at the bottom of a pit for approximately 15 years due to some advice that he gave to the king at
the time. Ml ʿAbd al-Ḥayy al-Lucknawī writes [Al-Fawā’id al-Bahiyyah, pg.262]:
‫وﻗﺪ ﺷﺎع أﻧﻪ أﻣﻠﻰ "اﳌﺒﺴﻮط" ﻣﻦ ﻏﲑ ﻣﺮاﺟﻌﺔ ﺷﻲء ﻣﻦ اﻟﻜﺘﺐ وﻟﻪ "ﻛﺘﺎب ﰲ أﺻﻮل اﻟﻔﻘﻪ" و"ﺷﺮح اﻟﺴﲑ اﻟﻜﺒﲑ" أﻣﻼﳘﺎ وﻫﻮ اﳉﺐ ﳏﺒﻮس ﺑﺴﺒﺐ ﻛﻠﻤﺔ ﻧﺼﺢ _ﺎ اﻷﻣﺮاء وﻛﺎن‬
‫ب اﻟﺸﺮوط أﻃﻠﻖ ﻣﻦ اﳊﺒﺲ ﻓﺨﺮج إﱃ ﻓﺮﻏﺎﻧﺔ ﻓﺄﻛﺮﻣﻪ اﻷﻣﲑ ﺣﺴﻦ ﻓﻮﺻﻞ إﻟﻴﻪ اﻟﻄﻠﺒﺔ ﻓﺄﻛﻤﻠﻪ‬T ‫ﺗﻼﻣﺬﺗﻪ ﳚﺘﻤﻌﻮن ﻋﻠﻰ أﻋﻼ اﳉﺐ ﻳﻜﺘﺒﻮن ﻓﻠﻤﺎ وﺻﻞ إﱃ‬
• Murteza Bedir digs deeper as to the causation of the imprisonment, He first presents the view of Hamidullah
who stated that Al-Sarakhsī was critical of unjust taxes as apparent from his ‫اﳌﺒﺴﻮط‬. However, Bedir concludes
[pg.33]:
Codification Stage: The role of Abū Zayd al-Dabūsī (d.430 AH), Al-Sarakhsī (d.483 AH) & Al-Bazdawī (d.482 AH)

• During his imprisonment, he dictated his book Al-Mabsūṭ, after which he decided to dictate a book in Uṣūl al-
Fiqh later titled ‫ ﲤﻬﻴﺪ اﻟﻔﺼﻮل ﰲ اﻷﺻﻮل‬as he states in the introduction [pg.10]:

• This prolific memory should not be a surprise based upon an incident recorded by Ibn Quṭlubugāh (d.879 AH)
in Tāj al-Tarājim [pg.234]:
‫ﻗﺎل ﰲ اﳌﺴﺎﻟﻚ ﺣﻜﻲ ﻋﻨﻪ أﻧﻪ ﻛﺎن ﺟﺎﻟﺴﺎ ﰲ ﺣﻠﻘﺔ اﻹﺷﺘﻐﺎل ﻓﻘﻴﻞ ﻟﻪ ﺣﻜﻲ ﻋﻦ اﻟﺸﺎﻓﻌﻲ أﻧﻪ ﻛﺎن ﳛﻔﻆ ﺛﻼﲦﺎﺋﺔ ﻛﺮاس ﻓﻘﺎل ﺣﻔﻆ اﻟﺸﺎﻓﻌﻲ زﻛﺎة ﻣﺎ أﺣﻔﻆ‬
• The book draws heavily upon ‫ﺗﻘﻮﱘ اﻷدﻟﺔ‬, Bedir writes [pg.32]:

• Unlike Al-Bazdawī’s book, Al-Sarakhsī’s book is user-friendly and easy-to-understand

Codification Stage: The role of Abū Zayd al-Dabūsī (d.430 AH), Al-Sarakhsī (d.483 AH) & Al-Bazdawī (d.482 AH)

The Role of Al-Bazdawī (d.482 AH)

• He was also a student of Al-Ḥalwānī and maintained the Al-Ḥalwānī’s legacy in Samarqand along with his brother Ṣadr al-
Islām al-Bazdawī (d.493 AH)
• He wrote a book in Uṣūl titled ‫ﻛﻨﺰ اﻟﻮﺻﻮل إﱃ ﻣﻌﺮﻓﺔ اﻷﺻﻮل‬, its most well-known commentary is (‫ه‬٧٣٠) ‫ﻛﺸﻒ اﻷﺳﺮار ﻟﻌﻼء اﻟﺪﻳﻦ اﻟﺒﺨﺎري‬
• It is based upon the efforts of Al-Dabūsī (d.430 AH) and Al-Jasṣāṣ (d.370 AH) meaning that the book builds Uṣūl from Furūʿ
thus cementing an Irāqī-Bukhāran tradition
• His cognomen was Abu’l ʿUsr due to the difficult elements in his writings, and this book is no different as it is a difficult
book to understand.
• He also wrote a commentary upon ‫ ﺗﻘﻮﱘ اﻷدﻟﺔ‬which ʿAlā al-Dīn al-Bukhārī (d.730 AH) quotes extensively
• Whilst Al-Dabūsī (d.430 AH) was not particularly concerned that some of the Uṣūl was supported and derived by
Muʿtazilah creed, this is whilst Al-Sarakhsī (d.483 AH) and Al-Bazdawī (d.482 AH) were very much anti-Muʿtazilah, and
though they may agree with Al-Dabūsī’s conclusion in Uṣūl, they were adamant in showing that it does not necessitate
beliefs of the Muʿtazilah. Thus, whilst the idea of ‫ ﻋﺎم‬being ‫ ﻗﻄﻌﻲ‬is connected to the Muʿtazilah creed of ‫ﲣﻠﻴﺪ ﻣﺮﺗﻜﺐ اﻟﻜﺒﲑة ﰲ اﻟﻨﺎر‬,
Al-Sarakhsī (d.483 AH) and Al-Bazdawī (d.482 AH) maintained that ‫ ﻋﺎم‬is ‫ ﻗﻄﻌﻲ‬but that does not necessitate ‫ﲣﻠﻴﺪ ﻣﺮﺗﻜﺐ اﻟﻜﺒﲑة ﰲ‬
‫اﻟﻨﺎر‬. Dr. Khaznah writes [pg.172]:
‫ أﻛﺜﺮ وﺿﻮﺣﺎ ﰲ ﳐﺎﻟﻔﺔ اﻷﺻﻮل اﻟﻜﻼﻣﻴﺔ اﻹﻋﺘﺰاﻟﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﻌﺮاﻗﻴﲔ اﻟﱵ ﺑﻨﻮا‬Œ‫ﻟﻌﻘﻴﺪة اﳌﺎﺗﺮﻳﺪﻳﺔ ﺧﺎﺻﺔ ﰲ وﺿﻌﻬﻤﺎ ﳌﺴﺎﺋﻞ اﻷﺻﻮل واﺧﺘﻴﺎرﳘﺎ ﳍﺎ ﻓﻜﺎ‬€‫ﺛﺮﳘﺎ ﺑﻌﻠﻢ اﻟﻜﻼم ﻋﺎﻣﺔ و‬º ‫ﲤﻴﺰ اﻟﺒﺰدوي واﻟﺴﺮﺧﺴﻲ ﻋﻦ اﻟﺪﺑﻮﺳﻲ ﺑﻮﺿﻮح‬
‫ﳋﻼف اﻟﻌﻘﺪي ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺎ وﺿﻌﺎﻩ وﻣﺎ ﻗﺮراﻩ واﺧﺘﺎراﻩ ﻟﻠﻤﺬﻫﺐ وذﻟﻚ ﻹﻛﺘﻤﺎل اﻟﺘﺤﻮل اﻟﻌﻘﺪي ﻟﻠﻤﺬﻫﺐ اﳊﻨﻔﻲ ﻣﻦ اﳌﺬﻫﺐ‬€ ‫ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﻛﺜﲑا ﻣﻦ ﻣﺴﺎﺋﻞ اﻷﺻﻮل ﻣﻮاﻓﻘﲔ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ اﻟﺴﻤﺮﻗﻨﺪﻳﲔ واﺳﺘﻘﺮت اﳌﺴﺎﺋﻞ اﻷﺻﻮﻟﻴﺔ اﳌﺘﻌﻠﻘﺔ‬
‫اﻹﻋﺘﺰاﱄ إﱃ اﳌﺬﻫﺐ اﳌﺎﺗﺮﻳﺪي ﰲ ﻋﻬﺪﳘﺎ أي ﰲ اﻟﻘﺮن اﳋﺎﻣﺲ‬
Sh. Sohail Ḥanīf writes [pg.34]:
Codification Stage: The role of Abū Zayd al-Dabūsī (d.430 AH), Al-Sarakhsī (d.483 AH) & Al-Bazdawī (d.482 AH)

The Role of Al-Bazdawī (d.482 AH)

• Hassaan Shahawy writes [pg.9 How Subjectivity Became Wrong]:

• Another example of late Ḥanafīs purging their Uṣūl of Muʿtazili tendencies is the issue of Takhṣīṣ al-ʿIllāh. Dr.
Shahawy writes [pg.266-268]:
Codification Stage: The role of Abū Zayd al-Dabūsī (d.430 AH), Al-Sarakhsī (d.483 AH) & Al-Bazdawī (d.482 AH)
‫‪The view of Shāh Waliullah and its refutation‬‬
‫‪• Shāh Waliullah writes [Al-Inṣāf, pg.82]:‬‬
‫واﻋﻠﻢ أﱐ وﺟﺪت أﻛﺜﺮﻫﻢ ﻳﺰﻋﻤﻮن أن ﺑﻨﺎء اﳋﻼف ﺑﲔ أﰊ ﺣﻨﻴﻔﺔ واﻟﺸﺎﻓﻌﻲ رﲪﻬﻤﺎ ﷲ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻫﺬﻩ اﻷﺻﻮل اﳌﺬﻛﻮرة ﰲ ﻛﺘﺎب اﻟﺒﺰدوي وﳓﻮﻩ وإﳕﺎ اﳊﻖ أن أﻛﺜﺮﳘﺎ أﺻﻮل ﳐﺮﺟﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻗﻮﳍﻢ وﻋﻨﺪي أن اﳌﺴﺄﻟﺔ اﻟﻘﺎﺋﻠﺔ ‘ن اﳋﺎص ﻣﺒﲔ وﻻ‬
‫ﻳﻠﺤﻘﻪ اﻟﺒﻴﺎن وأن اﻟﺰ‪š‬دة ﻧﺴﺦ وأن اﻟﻌﺎم ﻗﻄﻌﻲ ﻛﺎﳋﺎص وأْن ﻻ ﺗﺮﺟﻴﺢ ﺑﻜﺜﺮة اﻟﺮواة وأﻧﻪ ﻻ ﳚﺐ اﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﲝﺪﻳﺚ ﻏﲑ اﻟﻔﻘﻴﻪ إذا اﻧﺴّﺪ ﺑﻪ ‪o‬ب اﻟﺮأي وأن ﻻ ﻋﱪة ﲟﻔﻬﻮم اﻟﺸﺮوط واﻟﻮﺻﻒ أﺻﻼ وأن ﻣﻮﺟﺐ اﻷﻣﺮ ﻫﻮ اﻟﻮﺟﻮب اﻟﺒﺘﺔ وأﻣﺜﺎل‬
‫ذﻟﻚ أﺻﻮل ﳐﺮﺟﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻛﻼم اﻷﺋﻤﺔ وأﻧﻪ ﻻ ﺗﺼﺢ ~ﺎ رواﻳﺔ ﻋﻦ أﰊ ﺣﻨﻴﻔﺔ وﺻﺎﺣﺒﻴﻪ وأﻧﻪ ﻟﻴﺴﺖ اﶈﺎﻓﻈﺔ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ واﻟﺘﻜﻠﻒ ﰲ ﺟﻮاب ﻣﺎ ﻳﺮد ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺻﻨﺎﺋﻊ اﳌﺘﻘﺪﻣﲔ ﰲ اﺳﺘﻨﺒﺎﻃﻬﻢ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻳﻔﻌﻠﻪ اﻟﺒﺰدوي وﻏﲑﻩ أﺣّﻖ ﻣﻦ اﶈﺎﻓﻈﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﺧﻼﻓﻬﺎ واﳉﻮاب ﻋﻤﺎ ﻳﺮد ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ‬
‫‪• Sh. Zāhid al-Kawtharī fiercely responds as he states [Bulūg al-Amānī, pg.250]:‬‬
‫ﺺ ﲞﱪ اﻵﺣﺎد ﰲ ﻫﺬا اﻟﺼﻒ ﻣﻊ ذﻛﺮﻩ ﻣﻨﺎﻇﺮة اﻟﺸﺎﻓﻌﻲ ﳏﻤﺪا ﰲ ذﻟﻚ ﻣﻨﺎﻗﻀﺎ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ و‪Ã‬ﻗﻀﺎ ﳌﺎ أﺑﺮﻣﻪ ﻗﺒﻞ ﳊﻈﺔ وﻫﺬا ﻣﻦ اﻟﺪﻟﻴﻞ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺒﻠﻎ وﻋﻴﻪ‬ ‫وﻣﻨﻬﺎ ﲢﻜﻤﻪ ﰲ أﺻﻮل اﳌﺬﻫﺐ وﺗﻘّﻮﻟﻪ أ¾ﺎ ﺻﻨﻊ ﻳﺪ اﳌﺘﺄﺧﺮﻳﻦ وذﻛﺮﻩ اﻟﺰ‪š‬دة ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﻨّ ّ‬
‫وﻋﻠﻰ ﺿﻴﻖ داﺋﺮة اﻃﻼﻋﻪ وﻋﺪم ﺧﱪﺗﻪ ﺑﻜﺘﺐ اﳌﺘﻘﺪﻣﲔ اﳌﺒﺜﻮث ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﻛﺜﲑ ﻣﻦ أﺻﻮل اﳌﺬﻫﺐ ‪o‬ﻟﻨﻘﻞ ﻋﻦ أﺋﻤﺘﻨﺎ اﻟﻘﺪﻣﺎء ﻓﺄﻳﻦ ﻫﻮ ﻣﻦ اﻹﻃﻼع ﻋﻠﻰ ﻛﺘﺎب "اﳊﺠﺞ اﻟﻜﺒﲑ" أو "اﻟﺼﻐﲑ" ﻟﻌﻴﺴﻰ ﺑﻦ أ‪o‬ن و"ﻓﺼﻮل" أﰊ ﺑﻜﺮ اﻟﺮازي ﰲ‬
‫اﻷﺻﻮل و"ﺷﺎﻣﻞ" اﻹﺗﻘﺎﱐ وﺷﺮوح ﻛﺘﺐ ﻇﺎﻫﺮ اﻟﺮواﻳﺔ اﻟﱵ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﻛﺜﲑ ﺟﺪا ﳑﺎ ﻳﺘﻌﻠﻖ ‘ﺻﻮل اﳌﺬﻫﺐ اﳌﻨﻘﻮﻟﺔ ﻋﻦ أﺋﻤﺘﻨﺎ؟ ﻓﻼ ﻳﺼﺢ أن ﻳﻌّﻮل ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺜﻠﻪ ﰲ ﻫﺬا اﳌﻮﺿﻮع‬
‫‪• However, the reality seems to be that Shāh Waliullah’s comments are true in essence, however, they have been exaggerated to make the extracted‬‬
‫‪Uṣūl look like wild guesses‬‬
‫‪• Sh. Abū Zuhrah writes [Abū Ḥanīfah, pg.15]:‬‬
‫وﻟﻘﺪ ﳒﺪ ﻧﻘﺼﺎ آﺧﺮ وﻫﻮ أن أﺻﻮل أﰊ ﺣﻨﻴﻔﺔ وﻃﺮاﺋﻖ اﺳﺘﻨﺒﺎﻃﻪ ﱂ ﳒﺪﻫﺎ ﻣﺪوﻧﺔ ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﺑﲔ أﻳﺪﻳﻨﺎ ﻣﻦ ﻛﺘﺐ ﻓﻠﻢ ﻧﻌﺮﻓﻬﺎ ﻣﻔﺼﻠﺔ ﻋﻦ ﻃﺮﻳﻖ اﻟﺮواﻳﺔ ﻋﻨﻪ ﻻ ﻋﻦ ﺗﻼﻣﻴﺬﻩ وﻻ ﻋﻦ ﻏﲑﻫﻢ وﻣﺎ دّون ﻣﻦ أﺻﻮل ﻛﺎن ﻣﺴﺘﻨﺒﻄﺎ ﻣﻦ ﳎﻤﻮع أﺣﻜﺎم‬
‫اﻟﻔﺮوع واﻟﺮﺑﻂ ﺑﻴﻨﻬﻤﺎ وﲨﻊ ﻛﻞ ﻃﺎﺋﻔﺔ ﻣﻨﻬﺎ ﰲ ﻗﺮن واﺣﺪ ﻳﻌﺘﱪ أﺻﻠﻬﺎ ﻓﺮﺳﺎﻟﺔ أﰊ اﳊﺴﻦ اﻟﻜﺮﺧﻲ ورﺳﺎﻟﺔ اﻟﺪﺑﻮﺳﻲ وﻛﺘﺎب اﻟﺒﺰدوي وﻛﻞ ﻣﺎ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﻣﻦ أﺻﻮل ﺟﺎﻣﻌﺔ ﺳﻮاء أﻛﺎن ﻗﻮاﻋﺪ ﻷﺣﻜﺎم اﻟﻔﺮوع اﳉﺰﺋﻴﺔ أم ﻛﺎن ﻃﺮاﺋﻖ ﻹﺳﺘﻨﺒﺎط‬
‫اﳌﺬﻫﺐ اﳊﻨﻔﻲ– ﻟﻴﺲ ﻣﺄﺛﻮرا ‪o‬ﻟﺮواﻳﺔ ﻋﻦ اﻹﻣﺎم أو أﺻﺤﺎﺑﻪ وﻟﻜﻦ ﻛﺎن ﻣﺴﺘﻨﺒﻄﺎ ﻣﻦ اﻟﻔﺮوع اﳌﺄﺛﻮرة ﻋﻦ ﻫﺆﻻء اﻷﺋﻤﺔ اﻟﺬﻳﻦ أﻧﺸﺌﻮا اﳌﺬﻫﺐ اﳊﻨﻔﻲ‬
‫‪• Sh. ʿAwwāmah writes [Tadrīb, 4:160]:‬‬
‫ﻣﻌﻠﻮم ﻣﻦ ﻃﺮﻳﻘﺔ اﳊﻨﻔﻴﺔ ﰲ اﺑﺘﻨﺎء ﻗﻮاﻋﺪﻫﻢ وأﺣﻜﺎﻣﻬﻢ اﻷﺻﻮﻟﻴﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺎ ﻳﺘﻌﻤﺪوﻧﻪ ﻣﻦ ﻓﺮوع ﻓﻘﻬﻴﺔ ﻗﺎﺋﻤﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ أدﻟﺔ ﻣﻦ اﻟﻜﺘﺎب واﻟﺴﻨﺔ‬
‫‪• Dr. Khaznah has a detailed refutation on Shāh Waliullah on pages 176-180. He explains:‬‬
‫‪ of the Furūʿ, Jasṣāṣ having written his book near the end of his life and Al-Sarakhsī‬اﺳﺘﻘﺮاء ‪Ø The A’immah who have extracted these Uṣūl did so after‬‬
‫‪having dictated his book after dictating the entirety of Al-Mabsūṭ. He writes [pg.175]:‬‬
‫اﻷﺻﻮل اﻟﱵ وﺿﻌﻬﺎ ﻋﻠﻤﺎء اﳊﻨﻔﻴﺔ ﱂ ﺗﻜﻦ ﻣﺒﻨﻴﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﻮﻫﻢ ﺑﻞ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻋﻠﻢ دﻗﻴﻖ ‪o‬ﳌﺬﻫﺐ وﻣﺮو‪š‬ﺗﻪ ‪o‬ﻟﻔﺮوع واﻷﺻﻮل وﻋﻠﻰ اﺳﺘﻘﺮاء ﻛﺎﻣﻞ ﻟﻜﻞ ﺟﺰﺋﻴﺎت اﳌﺬﻫﺐ وﻓﺮوﻋﻪ‪...‬وإن ﻋﻠﻤﺎء أﺻﻮل اﳌﺬﻫﺐ اﻟﺬﻳﻦ اﺳﺘﺨﺮﺟﻮا اﻷﺻﻮل ﻣﻦ‬
‫اﻟﻔﺮوع ﻛﺎﻟﻜﺮﺧﻲ واﳉﺼﺎص واﻟﺪﺑﻮﺳﻲ واﻟﺒﺰدوي واﻟﺴﺮﺧﺴﻲ ﻗﺪ أﺣﻜﻤﻮا اﻟﻔﺮوع ﻓﻜﺎﻧﻮا ﺷﻴﻮخ اﳌﺬﻫﺐ وﺻﻨﻔﻮا ﲨﻴﻌﺎ ﻛﺘﺒﺎ ﻛﺜﲑة ودﻗﻴﻘﺔ‪...‬ﻓﻬﺆﻻء أﺣﻖ اﻟﻨﺎس ﺑﻮﺿﻊ أﺻﻮل اﳌﺬﻫﺐ وﲣﺮﳚﻬﺎ ﻣﻦ اﻟﻔﺮوع اﻟﻔﻘﻬﻴﺔ واﳊﻜﻢ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺻﺤﺔ‬
‫ﻧﺴﺒﺘﻬﺎ ﻟﻠﻤﺬﻫﺐ وﻻ ﳛﻖ ﻷﺣﺪ أن ﻳﻨﻔﻲ ﺻﺤﺔ ﻧﺴﻴﺘﻬﺎ أو أ‪ š‬ﻣﻨﻬﺎ ﻟﻠﻤﺬﻫﺐ إﻻ ﺑﻌﺪ أن ﻳﺼﻞ إﱃ اﳌﺮﺗﺒﺔ اﻟﻌﻠﻤﻴﺔ اﻟﱵ وﺻﻠﻮا إﻟﻴﻬﺎ واﺳﺘﺤﻘﻮا ~ﺎ ﲣﺮﻳﺞ اﻷﺻﻮل‬
‫‪Ø Many of the Uṣūl are taken from the implicit and explicit meanings of their statements‬‬
Regimentation Stage: The Acceptance of Shams al-A’immah al-Sarakhsī (d.483 AH) & Fakhr al-Islām al-Bazdawī (d.482 AH)

• After the works of Al-Sarakhsī (d.483 AH) and Al-Bazdawī (d.482 AH), the later books completely relied upon
their works, such that if these two scholars agreed upon a position in Uṣūl, rarely would the later scholars
disagree with it
• It was also during the standardization stage that small primers began to be written summarizing the
discussions of these two great scholars
• However, in terms of order of presentation, the later books generally preferred the order of Al-Bazdawī (d.482
AH). Al-Nasafī (d.710 AH) writes in ‫[ ﻛﺸﻒ اﻷﺳﺮار ﺷﺮح اﳌﻨﺎر‬pg.3]:
‫ورأﻳﺖ اﶈﺼﻠﲔ ﺑﺒﺨﺎرى وﻏﲑﻫﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺑﻼد اﻹﺳﻼم ﻣﺎﺋﻠﲔ إﱃ أﺻﻮل اﻟﻔﻘﻪ ﻟﻔﺨﺮ اﻹﺳﻼم وﴰﺲ اﻷﺋﻤﺔ اﻟﺴﺮﺧﺴﻲ ﺗﻐﻤﺪﳘﺎ ﷲ ﺑﺮﲪﺘﻪ ﻓﺎﺧﺘﺼﺮ½ﻤﺎ ﺑﻌﺪ اﻟﺘﻤﺎس اﻟﻄﺎﻟﺒﲔ ﻣﻠﺘﺰﻣﺎ ﲨﻴﻊ اﻷﺻﻮل ﻣﻮﻣﻴﺎ‬
}‫ﻟﺰ}دة ﺣﺮ‬Q ‫إﱃ اﻟﺪﻻﺋﻞ واﻟﻔﺮوع راﻋﻴﺎ ﺗﺮﺗﻴﺐ ﻓﺨﺮ اﻹﺳﻼم إﻻ ﻣﺎ دﻋﺖ اﻟﻀﺮورة إﻟﻴﻪ وﱂ أزد ﺷﻴﺌﺎ أﺟﻨﺒﻴﺎ إﻻ ﻣﺎ ﻛﺎن‬
‫ﻃﺮﻳﻘﺔ اﳉﻤﻊ ‪Regimentation Stage: The appearance of‬‬

‫‪• The famous Jordanian senior scholar, Sh. ʿAbd al-Malik al-Saʿdī states that the first scholar to‬‬
‫‪combine between the Ṭarīqah al-Fuqahā and the Ṭarīqah al-Mutakallimūn was ʿAlā al-Dīn al-‬‬
‫ﻣﻴﺰان اﻷﺻﻮل ﰲ ﻧﺘﺎﺋﺞ اﻟﻌﻘﻮل ‪Samarqandī (d.539 AH) in his‬‬
‫)‪, claims that Al-Dabūsī (d.430 AH‬ﺗﻘﻮﱘ اﻷدﻟﺔ ‪• This is whilst Dr. Maḥmūd al-ʿAwāṭilī, the researcher of‬‬
‫‪was the first to do this using the evidence of the presence of ʿIlm al-Manṭiq in the book‬‬
‫‪. Dr. Khaznah states [pg.190]:‬ﻃﺮﻳﻘﺔ اﳉﻤﻊ ‪ and‬ﻃﺮﻳﻘﺔ اﻟﺴﻤﺮﻗﻨﺪﻳﲔ ‪• However, there is a difference between‬‬
‫ﻓﺎﻟﺴﻤﺮﻗﻨﺪي ﻳﻌﺮض أﺻﻮﻟﻪ ﺑﻄﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﻣﺪرﺳﺔ ﲰﺮﻗﻨﺪ ووﻓﻘﺎ ﳌﻨﺎﻫﺠﻬﻢ دون اﻟﻨﻈﺮ إﱃ أﺻﻮل اﳌﺘﻜﻠﻤﲔ واﻟﺸﺎﻓﻌﻴﺔ وﻃﺮﻳﻘﺘﻬﻢ ﻓﻴﻌﺮض أﺻﻮل اﻟﺴﻤﺮﻗﻨﺪﻳﲔ وﻳﻘﺎر“ﺎ‬
‫وﻳﻨﺎﻇﺮﻫﺎ •ﺻﻮل اﻟﻌﺮاﻗﻴﲔ وﻏﲑﻫﻢ ﻣﻦ اﳊﻨﻔﻴﺔ وﱂ ﺗﻜﻦ ﻏﺎﻳﺘﻪ اﳉﻤﻊ ﳍﺬﻩ اﻟﻄﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﻓﻐﺎﻳﺔ ﻛﻞ ﻣﻨﻬﻤﺎ ﳐﺘﻠﻔﺔ إﻻ أن ﻫﻨﺎك وﺟﻪ ﺷﺒﻪ ﺑﻴﻨﻬﻤﺎ إذ إن ﻃﺮﻳﻘﺔ اﻟﺴﻤﺮﻗﻨﺪﻳﲔ‬
‫اﻟﱵ اﺗﺒﻌﻬﺎ اﻟﺴﻤﺮﻗﻨﺪي ﰲ ﻛﺘﺎﺑﻪ ﺗﻘﱰب إﱃ ﺣﺪ ﻛﺒﲑ ﻣﻦ ﻃﺮﻳﻘﺔ اﳌﺘﻜﻠﻤﲔ واﻟﺸﺎﻓﻌﻴﺔ إﺿﺎﻓﺔ إﱃ أن اﻟﺴﻤﺮﻗﻨﺪﻳﲔ واﻓﻘﻮا اﻟﺸﺎﻓﻌﻴﺔ ﰲ ﻛﺜﲑ ﻣﻦ اﻵراء اﻷﺻﻮﻟﻴﺔ اﻟﱵ‬
‫ﲤﻴﺰ اﻟﻌﺮاﻗﻴﻮن ﰲ ﳐﺎﻟﻔﺔ اﻟﺸﺎﻓﻌﻴﺔ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ‬
‫‪ by‬ﻃﺮﻳﻘﺔ اﳊﻨﻔﻴﺔ ‪ and‬ﻃﺮﻳﻘﺔ اﳌﺘﻜﻠﻤﲔ ‪• In reality, it was Ibn al-Sāʿātī (d.694 AH) who combined between the‬‬
‫ﺑﺪﻳﻊ اﻟﻨﻈﺎم ‪ in a book titled‬اﻹﺣﻜﺎم ﻟﻶﻣﺪي ‪ and‬أﺻﻮل اﻟﺒﺰدوي ;‪combining two books‬‬
‫‪Ibn Khaldūn writes [2:201]:‬‬
‫وأﻣﺎ ﻃﺮﻳﻘﺔ اﳊﻨﻔﻴﺔ ﻓﻜﺘﺒﻮا ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﻛﺜﲑا وﻛﺎن ﻣﻦ أﺣﺴﻦ ﻛﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﻟﻠﻤﺘﻘﺪﻣﲔ •ﻟﻴﻒ أﰊ زﻳﺪ اﻟﺪﺑﻮﺳﻲ وأﺣﺴﻦ ﻛﺘﺎﺑﺔ اﳌﺘﺄﺧﺮﻳﻦ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ •ﻟﻴﻒ ﺳﻴﻒ اﻹﺳﻼم اﻟﺒﺰدوي‬
‫ﻣﻦ أﺋﻤﺘﻬﻢ وﺟﺎء اﺑﻦ اﻟﺴﺎﻋﺎﰐ ﻣﻦ ﻓﻘﻬﺎء اﳊﻨﻔﻴﺔ ﻓﺠﻤﻊ ﺑﲔ ﻛﺘﺎب اﻷﺣﻜﺎم وﻛﺘﺎب اﻟﺒﺰدوي ﰲ اﻟﻄﺮﻳﻘﺘﲔ وﲰّﻰ ﻛﺘﺎﺑﻪ ‪£‬ﻟﺒﺪاﺋﻊ ﻓﺠﺎء ﻣﻦ أﺣﺴﻦ اﻷوﺿﺎع‬
‫وأﺑﺪﻋﻬﺎ وأﺋﻤﺔ اﻟﻌﻠﻤﺎء ﳍﺬا اﻟﻌﻬﺪ ﻳﺘﺪاوﻟﻮﻧﻪ‬
‫‪ with the logical proofs‬أﺻﻮل اﻟﺒﺰدوي ‪• In this book, Ibn al-Sāʿātī (d.694 AH) combined the Furūʿ found in‬‬
‫اﻹﺣﻜﺎم ﻟﻶﻣﺪي ‪and Kalām discussions found in‬‬
Regimentation Stage: The appearance of ‫ﻃﺮﻳﻘﺔ اﳉﻤﻊ‬

• Other books of this nature include:

Ø ‫ اﻟﺘﻨﻘﻴﺢ‬by Ṣadr al-Sharīʿah (d.747 AH), the author of ‫ﺷﺮح اﻟﻮﻗﺎﻳﺔ‬, in this book he codified ‫أﺻﻮل‬
‫ اﻟﺒﺰدوي‬whilst adding to it from ‫ اﶈﺼﻮل‬and ‫ﳐﺘﺼﺮ اﺑﻦ اﳊﺎﺟﺐ‬
He then wrote a commentary upon it titled ‫اﻟﺘﻮﺿﻴﺢ ﰲ ﺣﻞ ﻏﻮاﻣﺾ اﻟﺘﻨﻘﻴﺢ‬
A very famous marginalia was also written upon ‫ اﻟﺘﻨﻘﻴﺢ‬by Saʿd al-Dīn al-Taftāzānī (d.792
AH) titled ‫اﻟﺘﻠﻮﻳﺢ إﱃ ﻛﺸﻒ ﺣﻘﺎﺋﻖ اﻟﺘﻨﻘﻴﺢ‬
Ø ‫ﻓﺼﻮل اﻟﺒﺪاﺋﻊ‬
Ø ‫ اﻟﺘﺤﺮﻳﺮ‬by Ibn al-Humām (d.861 AH)
Ø ‫ ﻣﺮﻗﺎة اﻟﻮﺻﻮل ﰲ ﻋﻠﻢ اﻷﺻﻮل‬by Mullā Khusrow (d.885 AH), the author of ‫درر اﳊﻜﺎم‬
He then wrote a commentary upon it titled ‫ﻣﺮآة اﻷﺻﻮل ﰲ ﺷﺮح ﻣﺮﻗﺎة اﻟﻮﺻﻮل‬
‫ﻃﺮﻳﻘﺔ اﳉﻤﻊ ‪Regimentation Stage: The appearance of‬‬

‫اﻟﺘﺤﺮﻳﺮ ﻹﺑﻦ اﳍﻤﺎم )‪٨٦١‬ه(‬

‫اﻟﺘﻘﺮﻳﺮ واﻟﺘﺤﺒﲑ ﻹﺑﻦ أﻣﲑ اﳊﺎج اﳊﻠﱯ )‪٨٧٩‬ه(‬ ‫ﺗﻴﺴﲑ اﻟﺘﺤﺮﻳﺮ ﻷﻣﲑ ‪Q‬دﺷﺎﻩ )‪٩٧٢‬ه(‬

‫اﻟﺘﻨﻘﻴﺢ ﻟﺼﺪر اﻟﺸﺮﻳﻌﺔ )‪٧٤٧‬ه(‬

‫ﻫﻮ ﺗﻨﻘﻴﺢ "أﺻﻮل اﻟﺒﺰدوي" )‪٤٨٢‬ه( وزاد ﻓﻮاﺋﺪ ﻣﻬﻤﺔ‬
‫ﻣﻦ "اﶈﺼﻮل" ﻟﻠﺮازي )‪٦٠٦‬ه( و "ﳐﺘﺼﺮ اﺑﻦ اﳊﺎﺟﺐ"‬
‫)‪٨٧٩‬ه(‬

‫اﻟﺘﻮﺿﻴﺢ ﳊﻞ ﻏﻮاﻣﺾ اﻟﺘﻨﻘﻴﺢ ﻟﻠﻤﺆﻟﻒ )‪٧٤٧‬ه(‬ ‫اﻟﺘﻠﻮﻳﺢ إﱃ ﻛﺸﻒ ﺣﻘﺎﺋﻖ اﻟﺘﻨﻘﻴﺢ ﻟﻠﺘﻔﺘﺎزاﱐ )‪٧٩٢‬ه(‬
‫اﻋﺘﻤﺪ ﻛﺜﲑا ﻋﻠﻰ "ﻛﺸﻒ اﻷﺳﺮار" ﻟﻠﺒﺰدوي )‪٧٣٠‬ه(‬
Contemporary Studies on Ḥanafī Uṣūl al-Ḥadīth
Sh. Zāhid al-Kawtharī writes [Maqālat, pg.55]
‫ﺿﻄﺮاب اﻟﺴﻨﺪ واﻟﻨﻘﺪ اﻟﺬي ﻳﺴﻤﻴﻪ أﺻﺤﺎب ﻏﻮﻟﺪزﻳﻬﲑ ﻧﻘﺪ داﺧﻠﻴﺎ‬é ‫ﻹﺿﻄﺮاب ﰲ ﻣﱳ اﳊﺪﻳﺚ ﻗﺪر ﻋﻨﺎﻳﺘﻬﻢ‬Q ‫واﻟﻮاﻗﻊ أن اﶈﺪﺛﲔ اﻗﺘﺼﺮوا ﰲ اﻟﻐﺎﻟﺐ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻧﻘﺪ اﳊﺪﻳﺚ ﻣﻦ ﺟﻬﺔ اﻟﺴﻨﺪ ﻓﻼ ﻳﻌﻨﻮن‬
‫ﻳﻘﻮم ﺑﻪ أﻫﻞ اﻟﻔﻘﻪ واﻹﺳﻨﺘﺒﺎط واﻟﻔﺮﻳﻘﺎن ﺗﻘﺎﲰﺎ وﺟﻮﻩ ﻧﻘﺪ اﳊﺪﻳﺚ‬
• Contemporary studies have proven Kawtharī’s comment about the focus of the Fuqahā on the text of the narration has
proven true
• Sh. Sohail Ḥanīf presents how Ḥanafī Uṣūl al-Fiqh is grounded in three pillars:
1) Language – this includes the Ḥanafī insistence that ‫ ﻋﺎم‬must be understood as ‫ﻗﻄﻌﻲ‬, and that ‫ ﻣﻄﻠﻖ‬cannot be made ‫ﻣﻘﻴﺪ‬
2) The early juristic community
3) The habit of the law
This pillar along with the second are the ones that perhaps apply the most to the discussion of Sunnah amongst the
Ḥanafīs. Sh. Sohail writes: He also states [pg.160]:
Contemporary Studies on Ḥanafī Uṣūl al-Ḥadīth
• Dr. Anas Sarmīnī argues in the same fashion and states that the cornerstones of the Ahl al-Ra’y movement (for him this includes
the Mālikīs) are three aspects that are from an epistemological perspective indisputably established (‫)اﻟﻘﻄﻌﻴﺎت اﻟﺜﻼﺛﺔ‬:
1) ‫اﻟﺴﻨﻦ اﻟﻌﻤﻠﻴﺔ‬/‫اﻟﻌﻤﻞ اﳌﺘﻮارث‬ The unique feature of Dr. Anas’ thesis is that he explains this to be the correct hierarchy for the epistemological foundations of the Ahl al-Ra’y.
This means that ‫اﻟﻌﻤﻞ اﳌﺘﻮارث‬/‫ اﻟﺴﻨﻦ اﻟﻌﻤﻠﻴﺔ‬are given first preference, thus if they contradict the ‫ اﻟﻘﻮاﻋﺪ اﻟﻜﻠﻴﺔ‬or the ‫ﻇﻮاﻫﺮ اﻟﻘﺮآن‬, the latter two will be altered
2) ‫اﻷﻗﻴﺴﺔ اﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ‬/‫اﻟﻘﻮاﻋﺪ اﻟﻜﻠﻴﺔ‬ in favour of the ‫اﻟﺴﻨﻦ اﻟﻌﻤﻠﻴﺔ‬/‫اﻟﻌﻤﻞ اﳌﺘﻮارث‬. Some examples of this include laughing out loud in Ṣalāh breaking the Wuḍū, while the legal meaning is
that a breaker of Wuḍū involved the exiting of impurity, here communal practice supports the breaking of Wuḍū and so it is accommodated. He
3) ‫ﻇﻮاﻫﺮ اﻟﻘﺮآن وﺗﻘﺪم رﺗﺒﺘﻪ‬ then brilliantly concludes [pg.37]:
‫ﺎ ﺗﻔﺼﺢ ﻋﻦ ﺣﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﺗﻘﺪﱘ أﻫﻞ اﻟﺮأي اﻟﻨﺺ ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﻌﻘﻞ‬X‫ﻫﺬﻩ اﻟﻨﻘﺎط ?ﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻬﺎ ﺗﺸﻜﻞ أول ﻗﻄﻌﻲ ﻟﺪى أﻫﻞ اﻟﺮأي ﳜﻀﻌﻮن ﻟﻪ ﻇﻮاﻫﺮ اﻟﻘﺮآن اﻟﻜﺮﱘ واﻷﺣﺎدﻳﺚ اﻟﻨﺒﻮﻳﺔ وأﻳﻀﺎ اﻷﻗﻴﺴﺔ اﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ واﻟﻘﻮاﻋﺪ اﻟﻜﻠﻴﺔ ﻛﻤﺎ أ‬

• The arguments of Sh. Sohail and Dr. Anas are very similar. When I pointed this out to Dr. Anas, he also agreed and said:

• These contemporary studies also help to prove the statements of Abū Bakar al-Jasṣāṣ al-Rāzī (d.370 AH) who said [Sharḥ
Mukhtaṣar, 1:342]:
‫ﻓﺈن ﻃﺮﻳﻖ اﻟﻔﻘﻬﺎء ﰲ ﻗﺒﻮل اﻷﺧﺒﺎر ﻏﲑ ﻃﺮﻳﻖ ﻫﺆﻻء‬...‫ﻢ ﻳﻀﻌﻔﻮن اﳊﺎرث ﺑﻦ وﺟﺒﺔ‬°‫وﻫﺬا اﳊﺪﻳﺚ وإن ﻛﺎن أﺻﺤﺎﺑﻨﺎ ﻣﻦ أﻫﻞ اﳊﺪﻳﺚ ﻳﺘﻜﻠﻤﻮن ﻓﻴﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺟﻬﺔ أ‬
In another place, he writes [Sharḥ Mukhtaṣar, 4:244]:
‫ ﺻﺤﻴﺤﺔ ﻣﻦ أﻛﺜﺮ اﻟﻮﺟﻮﻩ اﻟﱵ روﻳﺖ ﻓﻴﻪ وﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﻃﺮﻳﻘﺔ اﻟﻔﻘﻬﺎء ﰲ ﻗﺒﻮل اﻷﺧﺒﺎر ﻃﺮﻳﻘﺔ أﺻﺤﺎب اﳊﺪﻳﺚ وﻻ ﻧﻌﻠﻢ أﺣﺪا ﻣﻦ اﻟﻔﻘﻬﺎء رﺟﻊ إﻟﻴﻬﻢ ﰲ‬±‫وﻫﻲ ﻋﻨﺪ‬...‫وﻫﺬﻩ اﻷﺧﺒﺎر ﻛﻠﻬﺎ ﻋﻨﺪ أﻫﻞ اﳊﺪﻳﺚ ﺿﻌﻴﻔﺔ‬
‫ﻗﺒﻮل اﻷﺧﺒﺎر وردﻫﺎ واﻋﺘﱪ أﺻﻮﳍﻢ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ‬
In another place, he writes [Sharḥ Mukhtaṣar, 2:160]:
‫ ذﻟﻚ ﻟﻴﻌﺮف ﺑﻪ ﻣﺬﻫﺐ اﻟﻘﻮم ﻓﻴﻪ دون اﻋﺘﺒﺎرﻩ واﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ‬±‫ﻩ ﻃﺮﻳﻘﺔ أﺻﺤﺎب اﳊﺪﻳﺚ واﻟﻔﻘﻬﺎء ﻻ ﻳﻌﺘﱪون ذﻟﻚ ﰲ ﻗﺒﻮل اﻷﺧﺒﺎر وردﻫﺎ وإﳕﺎ ذﻛﺮ‬±‫وﻫﺬا اﻟﺬي ذﻛﺮ‬
Contemporary Studies on Ḥanafī Uṣūl al-Ḥadīth
• Accordingly, what we notice in the Ḥanafī Uṣūl books is that they organise their presentation of their discussion on the
Sunnah in accordance with the general books on Uṣūl that are mostly organised according to Imām al-Shāfiʿī’s approach of
the Isnād system. However, when discussing the Uṣūl themselves, the Ḥanafī Uṣūl books will maintain the three pillars
discussed above. Accordingly, our scholars will discuss ‫ﺟﻬﺎﻟﺔ‬, ‫اﻧﻘﻄﺎع‬, ‫ﻋﺪاﻟﺔ‬, ‫ اﻟﺸﻬﺮة‬but the definitions and approaches for all of
these will be in line with the three pillars discussed earlier. Sh. Sohail Hanif writes [pg.56]:
Contemporary Studies on Ḥanafī Uṣūl al-Ḥadīth
• Sh. Sohail Hanif then gives a number of examples [pg.49-55]:
The community:
Contemporary Studies on Ḥanafī Uṣūl al-Ḥadīth
Legal meanings/general principles:

Language:
Contemporary Studies on Ḥanafī Uṣūl al-Ḥadīth
• Another important note to clarify is that if a singular Ḥadīth is not corroborated by one of
the three pillars mentioned above and it is contradicting the Qur’ān, then that does not
mean that it will be completely rejected. Rather, if it can be accommodated to a lower level,
then it will be accommodated. It will not be given the same level as the Qur’ān. ʿAllāmah
Kashmīrī writes [Fayḍ al-Bārī, 1:51]:
‫ﻢ‬m‫ﺧﺬ وﻧﺮد اﳋﱪ وأرادوا ﺑﻪ ﻋﺪم اﻋﺘﺪادﻩ ﰲ ﻣﺮﺗﺒﺔ اﻟﻜﺘﺎب وﺻﺪﻗﻮا إﻻ أ‬e ‫واﻋﻠﻢ أﻧﻪ ﻗﺪ وﻗﻊ ﰲ ﻛﺘﺐ اﻷﺻﻮل ﰲ ﻫﺬا اﻟﺒﺤﺚ ﻟﻔﻆ "اﻟﺮد" أن‬
‫أﺳﺎءوا ﰲ اﻟﺘﻌﺒﲑ‬
He also states [Fayḍ al-Bārī, 1:48]:
‫دة ﻟﻜﻦ ﰲ ﻣﺮﺗﺒﺔ اﻟﻈﻦ ﻓﻼ ﻳﺰاد ﺑﻪ ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﻘﺎﻃﻊ رﻛﻨﺎ أو ﺷﺮﻃﺎ وﻣﺎ ﺛﺒﺖ ﻣﻦ اﳋﱪ ﻳﻜﻮن واﺟﺒﺎ أو ﻣﺴﺘﺤﺒﺎ ﺣﺴﺐ ﻣﺎ‬t‫ﺧﱪ اﻟﻮاﺣﺪ ﲡﻮز ﻣﻨﻪ اﻟﺰ‬
‫ﺎ‬m‫دة اﺻﻄﻼﺣﺎ وأﻣﺎ ﰲ ﻣﺮﺗﺒﺔ اﻟﻮﺟﻮب واﻹﺳﺘﺤﺒﺎب ﻓﻼ ﻳﺴﻤﻮ‬t‫دة ﻋﻨﺪﻫﻢ ﰲ ﻣﺮﺗﺒﺔ اﻟﺮﻛﻨﻴﺔ واﻟﺸﺮﻃﻴﺔ ﻫﻲ اﻟﱵ ﺗﺴﻤﻰ ز‬t‫ﻓﺈن اﻟﺰ‬...‫اﻗﺘﻀﺎﻩ اﳌﻘﺎم‬
‫دة‬t‫ز‬
An example of this is the consideration of Sūrah Fātiḥah being Wājib in Ṣalāh or Wuḍū being
Wājib for Ṭawāf.
Ḥanafī Uṣūl al-Ḥadīth: a door for modernist abuse?
• As discussed, the Ḥanafī approach in Ḥadīth looks very much at the content of the narration. A key factor in Īsā ibn Abān’s
methodology seems to be that if a Ḥadīth was not found to have been used in a debate, then it would be doubted. This approach
may have influenced Joseph Schacht’s reasoning for rejecting Aḥādīth. Dr. Shahawy writes [pg.214]:

• Similarly, Goldziher argues for a difference between the Sunnah and Ḥadīth, the former being labelled as communal practice and the
latter he claims is a product of the former. I.e., Aḥādīth were fabricated to support communal practice. He states [Muslim Studies, 2:24]:

• This has confused some into thinking that this is how the Ahl al-Ra’y also approached this issue. Whereas the reality is the opposity for
the Ahl al-Ra’y. Rather, the Sunnah as found in the communal practice is established through the Aḥādīth. Dr. Anas Sarmīnī writes [pg.44]:
‫ﳊﺪﻳﺚ اﳌﻨﻘﻮل ^ﺳﺎﻧﻴﺪ اﶈﺪﺛﲔ أو اﻟﻔﻘﻬﺎء وﻫﻮ ﺣﺪﻳﺚ ﻗﻮﱄ ﻳﺮوي ﺑﺼﻴﻐﺔ ﻗﻮﻟﻴﺔ ﻛﻴﻒ ﻛﺎن اﻟﻌﻤﻞ واﻟﻔﺘﻮي…ﻳﺮون‬Q ‫ﰲ ﺣﲔ أن أﻫﻞ اﻟﺮأي ﻳﻨﻈﺮون إﱃ اﻷﻣﺮ ﲜﻬﺔ ﻣﻌﺎﻛﺴﺔ ﻓﺎﻟﺴﻨﺔ ﺗﻌﺮف ﻋﻨﺪﻫﻢ‬
‫)أي أﻫﻞ اﻟﺮأي( أّن اﻷﺣﺎدﻳﺚ‬
Biography of Ḥāfiẓ al-Dīn al-Nasafī (d.710 AH)
• His name was ʿAbdullah ibn Aḥmad ibn Maḥmūd al-Nasafī and was born in Nasaf
• His main teachers in Fiqh were Shams al-A’immah Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd al-Sattār al-Kardarī (d.642 AH) and Ḥamīd al-Dīn al-Ḍarīr (d.666 AH)
• His famous student was Ḥusam al-Dīn al-Sighnāqī (d.714 AH)
• Many scholars say that he was the last of the scholars who had any ability of Ijtihād in the Madhhab
• His books include:
‫اﻹﻋﺘﻤﺎد ﺷﺮح ﻋﻤﺪة اﻹﻋﺘﻘﺎد‬, ‫اﻟﻜﺎﰲ ﺷﺮح اﻟﻮاﰲ‬, ‫ﻛﺸﻒ اﻷﺳﺮار ﰲ ﺷﺮح اﳌﻨﺎر‬, ‫ﻛﻨﺰ اﻟﺪﻗﺎﺋﻖ‬, ‫ﻣﺪارك اﻟﺘﻨﺰﻳﻞ وﺣﻘﺎﺋﻖ اﻟﺘﺄوﻳﻞ ﰲ ﺗﻔﺴﲑ اﻟﻘﺮآن‬, ‫اﳌﺴﺘﺼﻔﻰ ﺷﺮح اﻟﻔﻘﻪ اﻟﻨﺎﻓﻊ‬, ‫اﳌﻨﺎر ﰲ أﺻﻮل اﻟﻔﻘﻪ‬
• Ml ʿAbd al-Ḥayy al-Lucknawī writes:

• He passed away in 710 AH in Īdhaj, a city in Samarqand

• Intitally, he wanted to write a commentary on Al-Hidāyah, but the leading scholar of the time, Tāj al-Sharīʿah (d. ca. 673 AH), the paternal grandfather of the
author of Sharḥ al-Wiqāyah, advised against this.
Biography of Ḥāfiẓ al-Dīn al-Nasafī (d.710 AH)
• So instead, he decides to write ‫ اﻟﻮاﰲ‬and then wrote a commentary upon ‫اﻟﻜﺎﰲ‬, this commentary was essentially written with
the purpose of correcting certain elements of Al-Hidāyah.
The book ‫ﻣﻨﺎر اﻷﻧﻮار‬
• The book is essentially a summary of Uṣūl al-Bazdawī and Uṣūl al-Sarakhsī
• However, he has followed the order of Al-Bazdawī (d.482 AH) and organised the book a lot better in terms of
presentation, along with this, he has added some extra Masā’il
• Al-Nasafī (d.710 AH) writes in ‫[ ﻛﺸﻒ اﻷﺳﺮار ﺷﺮح اﳌﻨﺎر‬pg.3]:
‫ورأﻳﺖ اﶈﺼﻠﲔ ﺑﺒﺨﺎرى وﻏﲑﻫﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺑﻼد اﻹﺳﻼم ﻣﺎﺋﻠﲔ إﱃ أﺻﻮل اﻟﻔﻘﻪ ﻟﻔﺨﺮ اﻹﺳﻼم وﴰﺲ اﻷﺋﻤﺔ اﻟﺴﺮﺧﺴﻲ ﺗﻐﻤﺪﳘﺎ ﷲ ﺑﺮﲪﺘﻪ ﻓﺎﺧﺘﺼﺮ½ﻤﺎ ﺑﻌﺪ اﻟﺘﻤﺎس اﻟﻄﺎﻟﺒﲔ ﻣﻠﺘﺰﻣﺎ ﲨﻴﻊ اﻷﺻﻮل ﻣﻮﻣﻴﺎ‬
}‫ﻟﺰ}دة ﺣﺮ‬Q ‫إﱃ اﻟﺪﻻﺋﻞ واﻟﻔﺮوع راﻋﻴﺎ ﺗﺮﺗﻴﺐ ﻓﺨﺮ اﻹﺳﻼم إﻻ ﻣﺎ دﻋﺖ اﻟﻀﺮورة إﻟﻴﻪ وﱂ أزد ﺷﻴﺌﺎ أﺟﻨﺒﻴﺎ إﻻ ﻣﺎ ﻛﺎن‬
• Sh. Sohail Ḥanīf mentions [pg.34] that ‫ اﳌﻨﺎر‬is arguably the second most commentated book in the history Uṣūl al-Fiqh,
second only to ‫ﳐﺘﺼﺮ اﺑﻦ اﳊﺎﺟﺐ‬
• Dr. Lu’ayy al-Khalīlī in his introduction to ‫ ﺗﻮﺿﻴﺢ اﳌﺒﺎﱐ‬lists 74 commentaries
‫ﻣﻨﺎر اﻷﻧﻮار ﰲ أﺻﻮل اﻟﻔﻘﻪ ‪The impact of‬‬
‫ﺗﻘﻮﱘ اﻷدﻟﺔ ﻟﻠﺪﺑﻮﺳﻲ )‪٤٣٠‬ه(‬

‫أﺻﻮل اﻟﺒﺰدوي )‪٤٨٢‬ه(‬ ‫أﺻﻮل اﻟﺴﺮﺧﺴﻲ ﻟﻠﺴﺮﺧﺴﻲ )‪٤٨٣‬ه(‬

‫ﳐﺘﺼﺮ أﰊ اﻟﻌﺰ اﺑﻦ ﺣﺒﻴﺐ )‪٨٠٨‬ه(‬
‫ﺧﻼﺻﺔ اﻷﻓﻜﺎر ﺷﺮح ﳐﺘﺼﺮ اﳌﻨﺎر‬
‫ﻹﺑﻦ ﻗﻄﻠﻮﺑﻐﺎﻩ )‪٨٧٩‬ه(‬
‫اﺧﺘﺼﺮﻩ‬
‫ﻫّﺬﺑﻪ‬
‫ﺗﻮﺿﻴﺢ اﳌﺒﺎﱐ وﺗﻨﻘﻴﺢ اﳌﻌﺎﱐ ﳌﻼ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻲ اﻟﻘﺎري )‪١٠١٤‬ه(‬
‫أﺧﺬ ﻟﺐ ﻣﺎ ﰲ ﺷﺮح اﺑﻦ ﻗﻄﻠﻮﺑﻐﺎﻩ‬
‫ﻛﺸﻒ اﻷﺳﺮار ﺷﺮح اﳌﻨﺎر ﻟﻠﻤﺼﻨﻒ اﻟﻨﺴﻔﻲ )‪٧١٠‬ه(‬
‫اﳌﻨﺎر ﻟﻠﻨﺴﻔﻲ )‪٧١٠‬ه(‬
‫ﺷﺮﺣﻪ‬
‫ﻧﻈّﻤﻪ‬ ‫ﺟﺎﻣﻊ اﻷﺳﺮار ﻟﻘﻮام اﻟﺪﻳﻦ اﻟﻜﺎﻛﻲ )‪٧٤٩‬ه(‬
‫أﺧﺬﻩ ﻣﻦ "ﻛﺸﻒ اﻷﺳﺮار” ﻟﻠﻤﺼﻨﻒ )‪٧١٠‬ه( و"ﻛﺸﻒ اﻷﺳﺮار" ﻟﺸﻴﺨﻪ اﻟﺒﺨﺎري )‪٧٣٠‬ه(‬
‫ﲰﺖ اﻟﻮﺻﻮل إﱃ ﻋﻠﻢ‬
‫اﻷﺻﻮل ﻟﻸﻗﺤﺼﺎري‬
‫)‪١٠٢٥‬ه(‬ ‫اﺳﺘﻔﺎد ﻣﻦ ﻛﺘﺎب ﺷﻴﺨﻪ اﻟﻜﺎﻛﻲ )‪٧٤٩‬ه( "ﺟﺎﻣﻊ‬ ‫اﻷﻧﻮار ﻟﻠﺒﺎﺑﺮﰐ )‪٧٨٦‬ه(‬
‫اﻷﺳﺮار"‬

‫ﺷﺮح اﺑﻦ ﻣﻠﻚ )‪٨٨٥‬ه(‬

‫ﻣﻨﻈﻮﻣﺔ اﻟﻜﻮاﻛﺐ ﻟﻠﻜﻮاﻛﱯ )‪١٠٢٥‬ه(‬ ‫ﻧﻈﻢ ﳐﺘﺼﺮ ﳌﺨﺘﺼﺮ اﳌﻨﺎر ﻟﻠﻜﻮراﱐ )‪١٠٩٦‬ه(‬
‫ﺣﺎﺷﻴﺔ ﻟﻌﺰﻣﻲ زادﻩ )‪١٠٤٠‬ه( "ﻧﺘﺎﺋﺞ اﻷﻓﻜﺎر"‬ ‫ﺣﺎﺷﻴﺔ ﻹﺑﻦ اﳊﻠﱯ )‪٩٧١‬ه( أﻧﻮار‬ ‫ﺣﺎﺷﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﺮﻫﺎوي )‪٩٤٢‬ه(‬
‫اﳊﻠﻚ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺷﺮح اﳌﻨﺎر ﻹﺑﻦ ﻣﻠﻚ‬

‫إرﺷﺎد اﻟﻄﺎﻟﺐ إﱃ ﻣﻨﻈﻮﻣﺔ اﻟﻜﻮاﻛﺐ ﻟﻠﻤﺆﻟﻒ )‪١٠٢٥‬ه(‬ ‫إﻓﺎﺿﺔ اﻷﻧﻮار ﰲ إﺿﺎءة أﺻﻮل اﳌﻨﺎر ﻟﻠﺪﻫﻠﻮي )‪٨٩١‬ه(‬
‫ﻓﺘﺢ اﻟﻐﻔﺎر ﺑﺸﺮح اﳌﻨﺎر ﻹﺑﻦ ﳒﻴﻢ )‪٩٧٠‬ه( ﺑّﲔ ﻓﻴﻪ أﻧّﻪ ﱂ ﻳﺘﺠﺎوز "اﻟﺘﻠﻮﻳﺢ ﺷﺮح‬
‫اﻟﺘﻮﺿﻴﺢ" و "اﻟﺘﻘﺮﻳﺮ ﺷﺮح اﻟﺘﺤﺮﻳﺮ" وأﻗﺮأﻩ ﰲ ﺟﺎﻣﻊ اﻷزﻫﺮ‪ ,‬وذﻛﺮ اﺑﻦ ﻋﺎﺑﺪﻳﻦ ﰲ "ﻧﺴﻤﺎت اﻷﺳﺤﺎر" أن‬
‫ﺗﻨﻮﻳﺮ اﻷﻧﻮار ﻟﻠﻜﻨﻮي )‪١١٨٠‬ه(‬ ‫ﻧﻮر اﻷﻧﻮار ﳌﻼ ﺟﻴﻮن )‪١١٣٠‬ه(‬ ‫إﻓﺎﺿﺔ اﻷﻧﻮار ﻋﻠﻰ أﺻﻮل اﳌﻨﺎر ﻟﻠﺤﺼﻜﻔﻲ )‪١٠٨٨‬ه(‬ ‫ﻫﺬا اﻟﻜﺘﺎب ﻣﻦ اﻟﻜﺘﺐ اﳌﻌﺘﱪة ﰲ اﻷﺻﻮل‬
‫ﺻﺎﺣﺐ "ﻓﻮاﺗﺢ اﻟﺮﲪﻮت ﺷﺮح ﻣﺴﻠﻢ اﻟﺜﺒﻮت"‬ ‫ذﻛﺮ أﻧﻪ راﺟﻊ ﻏﺎﻟﺐ ﺷﺮوح اﳌﻨﺎر ﻛﻜﺸﻒ اﻷﺳﺮار وﺷﺮح اﺑﻦ ﻣﻠﻚ واﺑﻦ ﳒﻴﻢ واﻟﺘﻮﺿﻴﺢ‬
‫واﻟﺘﻠﻮﻳﺢ‬

‫ﻗﻤﺮ اﻷﻗﻤﺎر ﻟﻠﻜﻨﻮي )‪١٢٨٥‬ه(‬ ‫ﺣﺎﺷﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﺒﺤﺮاوي )‪١٣٢٢‬ه(‬

‫ﺣﺎﺷﻴﺔ ﻧﺴﻤﺎت اﻷﺳﺤﺎر ﻹﺑﻦ ﻋﺎﺑﺪﻳﻦ )‪١٢٥٢‬ه(‬
A Summary

‫أﺻﻮل اﻟﻔﻘﻪ‬ The key founder of this approach is Abū Bakar al-
Bāqillānī () in his ‫اﻟﺘﻘﺮﻳﺐ واﻹرﺷﺎد‬, however, the scholar
who codified and built upon the views of Al-
Bāqillānī was Al-Juwaynī in his ‫اﻟﱪﻫﺎن‬. Al-Ghazālī, his
‫ﻃﺮﻳﻘﺔ اﻟﻔﻘﻬﺎء‬ ‫ﻃﺮﻳﻘﺔ اﳌﺘﻜﻠﻤﲔ‬ student, then came and built upon the works of Al-
Juwaynī in his ‫اﳌﺴﺘﺼﻔﻰ‬

‫ﻃﺮﻳﻘﺔ اﻟﻌﺮاق‬ ‫ﻃﺮﻳﻘﺔ اﳌﺘﻜﻠﻤﲔ اﳌﻌﺘﺰﻟﺔ‬ ‫ﻃﺮﻳﻘﺔ اﳌﺘﻜﻠﻤﲔ اﻷﺷﺎﻋﺮة‬

The key founder of

The four main ‫ﻃﺮﻳﻘﺔ اﻟﺮازي‬ ‫"ﻣﻨﻬﺎج‬
‫ﻃﺮﻳﻘﺔ‬ this approach is
ʿAbd al-Jabbār al- books of ‫ﻃﺮﻳﻘﺔ‬ "‫اﻟﻮﺻﻮل‬
"‫"اﶈﺼﻮل ﰲ ﻋﻠﻢ اﻷﺻﻮل‬ ‫ﻟﻠﺒﻴﻀﺎوي‬
‫اﻟﺴﻤﺮﻗﻨﺪﻳﲔ‬ Muʿtazilī (d.415
AH), but the more
‫اﳌﺘﻜﻠﻤﲔ‬:
1) ‫"اﻟﻌﻤﺪ" ﻟﻌﺒﺪ اﳉﺒﺎر‬
(‫ه‬٦٨٥) "‫"ﲨﻊ اﳉﻮاﻣﻊ‬
famous writer
2) ‫"اﳌﻌﺘﻤﺪ" ﻷﰊ اﳊﺴﲔ‬ ‫ﻟﻠﺴﺒﻜﻲ‬
whose books ‫ﻃﺮﻳﻘﺔ اﻵﻣﺪي‬ ‫"ﳐﺘﺼﺮ" اﺑﻦ‬ (‫ه‬٧٧١)
‫ﻃﺮﻳﻘﺔ اﳉﻤﻊ‬ became widely 3) ‫اﻟﱪﻫﺎن ﻟﻠﺠﻮﻳﲏ‬
"‫"اﻹﺣﻜﺎم ﰲ أﺻﻮل اﻷﺣﻜﺎم‬ ‫اﳊﺎﺟﺐ‬
accepted was his 4) ‫اﳌﺴﺘﺼﻔﻰ ﻟﻠﻐﺰاﱄ‬ (‫ه‬٦٤٦)
student, Abu’l
Ḥusain al-Baṣrī
(d.436 AH)